Welfare outcomes of migration of low-income earners from … · 2015-09-25 · Welfare outcomes of migration of low-income earners from metropolitan to non-metropolitan Australia

Welfare outcomes of migration of low-income earners from metropolitan to non-metropolitan Australia Authored by Nancy Marshall, Peter Murphy, Ian Burnley and Graeme Hugo

for the

Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute UNSW-UWS Research Centre &

Southern Research Centre

February 2003AHURI Final Report No. 32 ISSN: 1834-7223

ISBN: 1 877005

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This material was produced with funding from the Commonwealth of Australia and the Australian States and Territories. AHURI gratefully acknowledges the financial and other support it has received from the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments, without which this work would not have been possible.

DISCLAIMER AHURI Ltd is an independent, non-political body which has supported this project as part of its programme of research into housing and urban development, which it hopes will be of value to policy-makers, researchers, industry and communities. The opinions in this publication reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of AHURI Ltd, its Board or its funding organisations. No responsibility is accepted by AHURI Ltd or its Board or its funders for the accuracy or omission of any statement, opinion, advice or information in this publication.

AHURI FINAL REPORT SERIES AHURI Final Reports is a refereed series presenting the results of original research to a diverse readership of policy makers, researchers and practitioners.

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... i

1 INTRODUCTION: RESEARCH AIMS AND CONTEXT .........................................................1

Research Aims ......................................................................................................................1

User Group ............................................................................................................................2

The Report Structure .............................................................................................................2

Australia’s Migration Context .................................................................................................2

The 1950s and 1960s: post World War II industrialisation and the long economic boom ..4

The 1970s and 1980s: Economic restructuring and first phase population turnaround......4

Since the 1990s: Population Turnaround: Phase 2 ............................................................5

Who is moving? ..................................................................................................................5

Free agents ........................................................................................................................5

Forced relocators................................................................................................................6

2 THE LITERATURE.................................................................................................................9

Mobility of Welfare Recipients..............................................................................................11

Initial Longitudinal Data Set Findings...................................................................................14

3 SURVEY METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................18

4 SURVEY FINDINGS ............................................................................................................20

Approach to Analysis ...........................................................................................................20

Framing the Survey Analysis ...............................................................................................20

Respondent Characteristics.................................................................................................21

Housing Affordability as a Relocation Decision Factor ........................................................23

Key Question: Are low-income earners being forced out of metropolitan areas by unaffordable housing? ......................................................................................................23

Housing Affordability as a Relocation Factor....................................................................24

Housing Affordability in the Context of Other Relocation Factors ....................................25

Housing Arrangements Before and After Relocation........................................................30

Housing costs ...................................................................................................................30

Housing cost satisfaction..................................................................................................32

Housing tenure .................................................................................................................32

Dwelling type ....................................................................................................................34

Housing quality and size...................................................................................................34

Welfare Outcomes of Relocation .........................................................................................36

Key question: Is there a net loss in a mover’s aggregate welfare after they relocate?.....36

Aggregate Welfare Before and After Relocation –Perceptions of Being Better Off ..........37

Aggregate Welfare Before and After Relocation – Intentions to Return to the City ..........38

Community Ratings Before and After Relocation .............................................................40

Place Satisfaction .............................................................................................................43

Lifestyle Adjustment Satisfaction......................................................................................47

Work Outcomes of Relocation .............................................................................................49

Key question: Does a shift to non-metropolitan areas impact on the capacity of ‘work-ready’ income-support types to obtain paid employment? ..........................................................49

Work-Ready Respondent Characteristics ........................................................................49

Relocation Factors............................................................................................................50

Overall Satisfaction of Non-metro Community .................................................................50

Satisfaction With Finding Work.........................................................................................51

Likelihood of the Unemployed Returning to the City ........................................................52

5 POLICY IMPLICATIONS......................................................................................................53

6 CONCLUSION .....................................................................................................................55

REFERENCES........................................................................................................................56

BIBLIOGRAPHY .....................................................................................................................60

Appendix One. Sample Questionnaire...................................................................................61

Movement of People from Cities to Smaller Towns and Country areas of Australia, 2001 .61

Appendix Two. Department of Family and Community Services Terminology ......................76

Newstart Allowance (Unemployment Income Support) ....................................................76

Youth Allowance (Youth Unemployment)* .......................................................................76

Parenting Payment ...........................................................................................................78

Aged Pension ...................................................................................................................78

Disability Support Pension................................................................................................79

Appendix Three. Questionnaire Results: Frequency Counts ..................................................80

Appendix Four. Detailed Survey Respondent Characteristics ..............................................108

Aggregate Respondent Characteristics..........................................................................108

Income-Support Recipient Characteristics .....................................................................110

State Respondent Characteristics ..................................................................................113

Appendix Five. Postcodes Used for Defining Survey Boundaries ........................................117

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Net Intrastate Migration Between Capital Cities and Rest of State, 1966-1971 to

1991-1996

Table 2: Australia: Annual Mobility Rates of Selected Groups

Table 3: Rent Paid by Welfare Recipients in Dollars per Fortnight, 1996-1997

Table 4: Movers From Metropolitan to Non-metropolitan Areas by Income-Support Type for all States and Territories

Table 5: Relative Percentages of Movers of State and Territory Totals by Income-Support Type

Table 6: Net Gains to Non-metropolitan Areas for Each State and Territory by Income-Support Type

Table 7: Outflows from Metro Areas as Proportions of Metro Recipients for State and Territory Totals by Income-Support Type

Table 8: Inflows to Non-Metro Areas as Proportions of Non-Metro Recipients for State and Territory Totals by Income-Support Type

Table 9: Very Important Considerations for Moving by Income-Support Type

Table 10: Very Important Considerations for Moving by State

Table 11: Lowest Rated Amenity/Service in Non-Metro Areas by Income-Support Type

Table 12: Very Important Relocation Factors for the Work-Ready Population

LIST OF TABLES IN APPENDICES Sample Population and Actual Respondent Statistics

Percentages of Survey Respondent Characteristics by Income-Support Type

Length of Time Lived in Sydney or Adelaide by Income-Support Type

Percentages of Survey Respondent Characteristics by State

Length of Time the Respondents Lived in Sydney or Adelaide by State

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Immigration, Internal Migration and House Prices, Sydney, 1980-1999

Figure 2: Immigration, Internal Migration and House Prices, Melbourne, 1980-1999

Figure 3: Immigration, Internal Migration and House Prices, Brisbane, 1980-1999

Figure 4: Immigration, Internal Migration and House Prices, Perth, 1980-1999

Figure 5: Mobility of Welfare Recipients by Age by Sex, 1996-1997

Figure 6: Australia: Mobility Rates by Age, 1971-1976, 1991-1996 and 1995-1996

Figure 7: Mobility Rates of Welfare Recipients by Regional Classification

Figure 8: Mobility Rates of Welfare Recipients by Socio-Economic Indicators for Areas (SEIFA) Quartiles

Figure 9: Housing Costs as a Relocation Factor – Aggregate

Figure 10: Housing Costs as a Relocation Factor by Income-Support Type

Figure 11: Housing Costs as a Relocation Factor by State

Figure 12: Very Important Relocation Factors – Aggregate

Figure 13: Very Important Relocation Factors by Income-Support Type

Figure 14: Very Important Relocation Factors by State

Figure 15: Amount Spent on Housing After Moving – Aggregate

Figure 16: Amount Spent on Housing After Moving by Income-Support Type

Figure 17: Amount Spent on Housing After Moving by State

Figure 18: Housing Tenure Before and After Moving – Aggregate

Figure 19: Housing Tenure Before and After Moving – Unemployed and Single Parents

Figure 20: Housing Tenure Before and After Moving – Disabled and Aged Pensioners

Figure 21: Housing Tenure Before and After Moving by State

Figure 22: Housing Quality and Size Satisfaction – Aggregate

Figure 23: Housing Quality and Size Satisfaction by Income-Support Type

Figure 24: Housing Quality and Size Satisfaction by State

Figure 25: Perceptions of Being Better off After Moving – Aggregate

Figure 26: Perceptions of Being Better off After Moving by Income-Support Type

Figure 27: Perceptions of Being Better off After Moving by State

Figure 28: Likelihood of Moving Back to Sydney or Adelaide – Aggregate

Figure 29: Likelihood of Moving back to Sydney or Adelaide by Income-Support Type

Figure 30: Likelihood of Moving Back to Sydney or Adelaide by State

Figure 31: Overall Community Ratings – Aggregate

Figure 32: Overall Community Ratings by Income-Support Type

Figure 33: Overall Community Ratings by State

Figure 34: Place Satisfaction After Moving – Aggregate

Figure 35: Place Satisfaction After Moving by Income-Support Types

Figure 36: Place Satisfaction After Moving by State

Figure 37: Lifestyle Adjustment Satisfaction – Aggregate

Figure 38: Lifestyle Adjustment Satisfaction by Income-Support Type

Figure 39: Lifestyle Adjustment Satisfaction by State

Figure 40: Satisfaction with Housing Location in Relation to Work by Income-Support Type

Figure 41: Satisfaction with Housing Location in Relation to Work by State

LIST OF FIGURES IN APPENDICES Respondent Characteristics: State and Gender Representations

Respondent Characteristics: Income-Support Type Representation

Household Make-up Before and After Moving by Income-Support Type

Where Respondents Moved to by Income-Support Type

Childhood Location by Income-Support Type

Household Make-up Before and After Moving by State

Where Respondents Moved to by State

Childhood Location by State

ABBREVIATIONS ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics

AHURI Australia Housing and Urban Research Institute

DSP Disability Support Pension

EEC European Economic Community

FaCS Family and Community Services, Commonwealth Department

LDS Longitudinal Data Set

NSW [state of] New South Wales

SA [state of] South Australia

SPP Sole Parent Pension

UB Unemployment Benefits

UNSW University of New South Wales

UWS University of Western Sydney

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Thousands of income-support recipients – the Unemployed, Single Parent households, Disabled and Aged Pensioners - move annually from Australian cities to non-metropolitan areas. The significance of low-income earners, including income-support recipients, in migration flows from metropolitan to non-metropolitan areas has been widely but relatively recently noted in Australian and international literature. In Australia the phenomenon is bound up in broader debates about the welfare-polarising effects of economic restructuring. Sydney has been the particular focus of those debates because it is Australia's largest city, its most globalised, its most expensive and the locus of immigration. Nevertheless, outflows of low-income earners from all main cities have been noted albeit with lesser force.

This study aimed to identify the motivations of, and trade-offs made by, such movers. In particular the importance of housing considerations vis-à-vis other choice factors, and changes to the perceived net welfare of movers, are explored. Public interest in the research derives from the possibility that low income-earners, including income-support recipients may be being ‘forced out’ of metropolitan areas by high housing costs.

The study had three components: (1) Review of international and Australian research (2) Analysis of migration patterns using the Department of Family and Community Services’ Longitudinal Data Set (3) A postal questionnaire survey of a sample of income-support recipients who had relocated from Sydney and Adelaide to non-metropolitan localities of NSW and South Australia. Whilst coverage of all Australian States would have been the optimal research strategy, the focus on NSW and SA has produced results that are very likely to be applicable to all States and Territories. In total, 7000 questionnaires were dispatched and 1496 returned for a 21% response rate.

Overall Conclusions Housing affordability is the single most important factor influencing decisions by income-support recipients to move away from Sydney and Adelaide. There are though other factors that are very important. Many people move for lifestyle reasons and personal circumstances. Cheaper and better housing in non-metro areas facilitates their moves.

Low-income earners acknowledge reduced access to services and facilities and wish they were improved in non-metro areas. Overwhelmingly though they still perceive themselves to be better off after moving. It is often the intangible ‘sense of place,’ community spirit, social attitudes, the physical environment and the general livability of non-metro communities that entice and keep individuals in these areas. Many would not move back to metropolitan areas even if they could afford to – that is, they now choose to stay where they are. However, many of the Unemployed sensed they would have to move back to the metro areas for employment purposes.

Although housing affordability is a major factor influencing mobility the overall welfare of income-support recipients is not seen as being reduced by movers. This is especially so for Single Parents, Aged Pensioners and the Disability Pensioners. Perceptions of the Unemployed of their overall welfare after relocating are slightly less positive. The income-support payment system may enable a ‘work-ready’ population to relocate to places where the probability of obtaining employment is actually lower. Whilst this implication is true in that income-support payments do enable recipients to move to non-metro areas, these benefits are contributing to the overall welfare of these individuals, many of whom are on a benefit other than an unemployment scheme, including Aged Pensioners, the Disabled and Single Parents who may not be looking for work.

In all of the literature on migration and poverty, despite the few exceptions noted in this report, there is little discussion on the role and significance of housing affordability, size, quality, location to employment opportunities, tenure options and accessibility. This study goes some way in filling in these gaps. The key research questions and the summary answers to those questions based on survey data follow.

ii

Are low-income earners being forced out of metropolitan areas by unaffordable housing? Survey data supports the a priori expectation that housing affordability is a major factor in the decision by income-support recipients to relocate from metropolitan cities to non-metropolitan areas. There was some variation amongst income-support groups and between NSW and SA but only at the level of detail. For many income-support recipients moving to non-metropolitan areas the relocation decision was based on the unavailability of affordable and appropriate housing in the metropolis. However, it is entirely possible that there were metropolitan housing alternatives but whether their choice would have meant a lower standard of living or less ideal lifestyle arrangements than they were able to achieve in non-metropolitan areas still remains a question.

Sixty-two percent of all survey respondents noted housing affordability as a key consideration in deciding to relocate to non-metropolitan NSW and SA. Housing costs are much higher in Sydney than in Adelaide. It is logical to assume that prices are more of a factor for NSW respondents in deciding to move. Two-thirds of NSW movers compared with half of SA movers indicated that housing was a major factor in their decision to move. Of the different income-support groups, the housing cost factor was most important to Single Parents and least important for Aged Pensioners.

Beyond housing costs, lifestyle factors and personal circumstances were very influential in relocation decisions. They included wanting a better place in which to raise a family, a desire to live away from the city, increasing crime levels in the city, and other personal or health reasons. Circumstances that influenced relocation also included changes in relationships, employment status, financial stability and household structure. Many income-support recipients actually wanted to move out of the cities. They were able to make those moves and achieve their desired lifestyle goals as a result of housing being more affordable, appropriate and available in non-metro areas.

For the Unemployed, housing and cost of living considerations were the most important relocation factors. For Single Parents, wanting a different location in which to raise a family and housing costs were most important. Most influential for the Disabled were the desire to live outside the city and housing costs, whilst for Aged Pensioners it was relationship changes (likely the death of a spouse) and wanting to own their own homes that rated highest.

A majority of movers believed they were better off after moving with regard to housing cost, quality and size. As expected, most metro to non-metro movers paid less for their housing after moving. Against this, a quarter of all movers actually paid more for housing in non-metro areas. This is consistent with a lesser emphasis on affordability as a relocation driver and greater emphasis on social and personal choice factors influencing people’s decisions to move. Rationally, people would not knowingly move to an area where their overall welfare would be reduced. Regardless of the degree to which they felt they were ‘forced’ out of Sydney or Adelaide respondents indicated a marked improvement in lifestyle and overall place satisfaction after moving out of the metro areas.

Is there a net loss in a mover’s aggregate welfare after they relocate? The notion of welfare is a multidimensional concept that incorporates all factors that influence an individual’s sense of well-being. It includes economic capacity, health, social opportunities, environmental context and so forth. Although it is a nebulous notion individuals are able to assess their levels of satisfaction with different aspects of their life circumstances.

An overwhelming 72% of all movers believed they were better off in their non-metropolitan communities than they were in Sydney or Adelaide. Just 12% felt they were better off before moving out of these cities. Eighty-two percent of Single Parents believed they were better off since moving, the most positive of all income-support groups. Overall, NSW respondents, slightly more than SA respondents, indicated they were ‘much better off’ after moving to a non-metro area.

When asked what the likelihood was of them moving back to Sydney or Adelaide within the next 12 months, two-thirds stated that it was very unlikely. Only 7% suggested it was very likely. The Unemployed were the most likely to move back and Aged Pensioners least likely. A higher percentage of SA movers believed they would move back to Adelaide than NSW recipients

iii

believed they would move to Sydney. Of those respondents who said it was very likely that they would move back to Sydney or Adelaide they would not be doing so because they did not rate their new, non-metro community positively. Likely, employment opportunities or personal circumstance would force them to move back.

Overall, non-metro communities were rated very positively. An overwhelming 85% rated their new community positively, compared to half who rated Sydney and Adelaide positively. Non-metro areas were not rated negatively at all, with just 4% suggesting their non-metro community was a poor place to live. In contrast, one-quarter of all respondents rated metro areas as poor places to live. The Unemployed rated their new community less favourably relative to the other income-support types whilst Aged Pensioners rated their new community most positively. The Unemployed had the most positive ratings for Sydney and Adelaide.

Interestingly, although new communities were rated very positively and most movers indicated they were unlikely to move back to Sydney or Adelaide, in comparing amenities and services between metro and non-metro areas, all but two factors – community spirit and aged services – were seen to be better in the cities. Community spirit was regarded as being better in non-metro areas by 71% of all respondents. Rated poorest in non-metro communities, relative to the cities, were transportation, shopping facilities and restaurants/clubs. NSW non-metro amenities were seen to be slightly better, across the board, than those in non-metro SA. All but one lifestyle adjustment was rated as being very satisfactorily by the movers. The most satisfying adjustment was ‘living a different lifestyle.’ The least satisfying was ‘finding work’ which was noted by two-thirds of all respondents to be easier in the cities.

Does a shift to non-metropolitan areas impact on the capacity of ‘work-ready’ income-support types to obtain paid employment? A key question for policy makers is the extent to which moving to non-metropolitan areas has a negative impact on the capacity of ‘work-ready’ income-support recipients to obtain employment. Overall the survey data indicates that there is a negative effect, especially for the Unemployed. This implies that people may be relocating without a full understanding of the lower chances of getting employment in non-metropolitan areas compared with the cities. The finding is also consistent with the large flows of income-support recipients moving back to the cities.

But the situation is more complex than that. The Unemployed, like other movers, were influenced in their relocation decisions by a range of factors other than employment. Circumstances such as personal or health factors, lifestyle choices, wanting access to different services and amenities, housing costs, the location as a place to raise a family and cost of living were the most important factors that the work-ready population considered in their decisions to move. Employment related factors were not the most important factors they considered.

Summation The search for affordable and appropriate housing is unquestionably the single most important set of ‘push’ factors influencing income-support recipients moving out of Sydney and Adelaide. They are not though the only considerations: personal and lifestyle factors also strongly influence movers. People are arguably enabled to relocate because housing is more affordable and appropriate in non-metropolitan areas. Housing and other life circumstances interact though as ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors on individuals and households so it is not possible to conclude that people are being ‘forced’ to relocate. The notion of ‘forcing’ implies no choice and clearly the respondents in this study had a range of very positive reasons for relocating. Overwhelmingly most believed that their net welfare improved as a result.

1

1 INTRODUCTION: RESEARCH AIMS AND CONTEXT With the recent proliferation of concern over regional areas in Australia, one phenomenon that has received little attention is the movement of people from metropolitan to non-metropolitan areas. Where this has been discussed it is usually in terms of high-income lifestyle migrants of the ‘sea change’ type. Yet more than a decade ago (Hugo, 1989a, 1989b) it was argued that a significant amount of the counter-urbanisation type of migration that occurs in Australia was ‘poverty led’. Hugo suggested that a significant component of population growth in Australia’s non-metropolitan areas was due to the in-migration, and retention, of low-income groups. An important element in this movement was said to be people receiving some form of transfer payments from government that are available across the nation and totally portable. A major attraction in these non-metropolitan areas is also the cost of living, especially cheaper housing. Moreover, in the mainland State capitals of Australia, a positive association between internal migration losses and housing prices has been noted and commentators have inferred that people may be being forced out of the cities by high housing prices (Murphy, Burnley, and Fagan 1997).

Research Aims The overall aim of this research was to test the assumption that the bias towards lower-income earners in the migration outflow from Australian primate cities to their non-metropolitan hinterlands means that movers are being forced out by unaffordable housing and that this choice leads to a net loss in their overall welfare. There is no doubt that housing costs are a factor (and not just for low-income earners) in relocation decisions. But for policy-makers to conclude that there is a public interest issue that needs attention many of the people relocating would need to be saying things such as:

• ‘I'd much rather be living where I was but given my income it was impossible to get appropriate and affordable housing and still have enough to live on’;

• ‘As a result of moving I've had to give up my job and haven't been able to find another one or the one I have found pays less and isn't enough to keep my household income after housing costs at the level it was’; or

• ‘A trade-off that has made things really difficult is that I now live in an area that is poorly supplied with human services and this is not just an inconvenience but a serious problem’.

The principal consideration then is whether a person's aggregate welfare is lessened as a result of moving. Accordingly, an aim of this study was to identify the motivations of, and tradeoffs made by, low-income households – specifically income-support recipients – who relocated from metropolitan cities to rural and regional Australia. In particular, the project sought to determine the importance of housing considerations relative to other factors in location choice and whether, in the search for appropriate and affordable housing, the net welfare of movers was affected and how it was affected. To the extent that the net welfare of movers was reduced due to relocation, policy issues related to housing subsidies, job creation and provision of human services arose. Migrants on lower incomes often arrived in localities with limited work opportunities suitable for them. A few also found that they had less disposable income than previously because of rent levels and the costs of travel to key services. Some experienced housing stress, particularly in rural and regional areas where housing costs have increased, in part, as the result of amenity-related migration by more affluent households but possibly in other localities as well. Examples may include population turnaround areas in north coastal NSW such as Port Macquarie and Coffs Harbour, exurban and peripheral areas beyond the metropolitan fringe of Australian cities as well as population turnaround regions beyond the fringes of other metropolitan cities.

Whilst some light can be shed on these issues with secondary data from sources such as Population and Housing Censuses and the Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services’ (FaCS) Longitudinal Data Set (LDS) on income-support recipients, direct questioning of those relocating was required to get accurate information on decision factors and their levels of welfare before and after relocation.

The primary research for the project had two components. First, data from the Commonwealth Department Family and Community Services LDS was used to describe the migration patterns

2

of income-support recipients from metropolitan to non-metropolitan areas and vice versa. The relative importance of these flows vis-à-vis base populations of income-support recipients in metropolitan and non-metropolitan regions was also identified. Second, a social survey was conducted of some income-support movers to determine the relative importance of housing costs in their residential location decisions and how their moves out of Sydney and Adelaide to non-metropolitan NSW and SA, respectively affected their net welfare. The survey focused on income-support recipients (Aged Pensioners, Unemployed, Disabled, Single Parents) who had moved from defined metropolitan postcodes to non-metropolitan localities and who were in receipt of a Commonwealth Government benefit payment both before and after relocation. A mailback questionnaire was sent to 7000 movers selected from Centrelink’s current client database. In total, 4,900 questionnaires from NSW and 2,100 from SA were dispatched, with 1496 completed and returned. In addition to this primary research reported on in later sections of this report and in the Appendices, the study included a review of Australian and international literature on the subject.

User Group A User Group was established at the beginning of the research program. It included representatives from FaCS in Canberra, FaCS in SA, the NSW Department of Housing and UNSW’s Social Policy Research Centre. The purpose of this Group was to familiarise these experts with the project, for them to provide comment on the overall research process and review the draft survey materials and AHURI reports. Overall, this User Group provided relevant and direct links to policy application of the research findings.

The Report Structure This Final Report consists of six parts. First, the introduction sets the general context of the research vis-à-vis population movements in general and how these relate to the changing balance of economic and social relationships between Australia’s primate cities and their hinterlands. Second, Australian and international literature on low-income migration is reviewed. Within this section, data from the Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services’ LDS are presented to establish recent pan-Australian movement patterns of income-support recipients. This illustrates the magnitude of the migration phenomenon and how it varies by category of income-support recipient and by State and Territory. Third, a survey methodology section describes the empirical techniques used in the social survey process which dispatched mailback questionnaires to income-support recipients who had moved intrastate from metropolitan to non-metropolitan localities in NSW and SA. Because the level of out-migration from Sydney is higher than for other Australian cities and because Sydney’s housing prices are by far the highest, the extent to which people are in fact being forced out by high housing prices is likely to be most sharply manifest there. However, because the phenomenon of low-income out-migration is evident around Australia, the inclusion of one other state, South Australia, in the survey goes some way towards determining the extent to which the outflows from Sydney and Adelaide are influenced by housing affordability. The fourth section of this report presents the results of the survey including quantitative statistics and rich qualitative comments. The analysis is based on three key research questions:

• Are low-income earners being forced out of metropolitan areas by unaffordable housing?

• Is there a net loss in a mover’s aggregate welfare after they relocate?

• Does a shift to non-metropolitan areas impact on the capacity of ‘work-ready’ income-support types to obtain paid employment?

Section five considers the broad policy implications resulting from this migration phenomenon, based on results from the entire research project. The last section is a brief conclusion.

Australia’s Migration Context Over the 1991-1996 intercensal period, 21,693 more people left Australia’s six state capital cities to live in non-metropolitan areas than moved into the cities from those areas. Table 1, however, shows that only in Sydney, and to a lesser extent Melbourne, were there net migration losses while the other state capitals received small net gains in 1991-1996. The table also shows that the net losses in Sydney and Melbourne are a longstanding feature. However, it is important to

3

point out that these net migration figures are only the tip of the iceberg of much larger in and outflows from the capital cities. In Sydney, for example, there were 164,033 people who moved in during 1991-1996 compared to 228,020 moving out.1

Table 1. Net Intrastate Migration Between Capital Cities and Rest of State, 1966-1971 to 1991-1996

New South Wales Victoria

1966-71 -5,784 20,998

1971-76 -22,429 -5,865

1976-81 -34,045 -18,514

1981-86 -26,652 -26,481

1986-91 -67,348 -29,118

1991-96 -33,059 -4,264

Queensland South Australia

1966-71 13,456 9,362

1971-76 6,718 5,900

1976-81 -2,481 2,375

1981-86 -9,811 1,651

1986-91 -3,035 3,902

1991-96 -1,889 4,815

Western Australia Tasmania

1966-71 15,187 3,396

1971-76 15,881 3,370

1976-81 6,722 -56

1981-86 7,347 na

1986-91 4,576 3,731

1991-96 6,534 2,982

Source: Bell and Hugo, 2000, 96

There are various ways of structuring a sketch history of the relationship between Australia’s primary cities2 and their regional hinterlands into convenient periods around which to hang a tale. Whilst the story starts with white settlement, to avoid making that the subject of the paper, three phases post-WWII have been identified: the long economic boom of the 1950s and 60s; the period of economic restructuring of the 70s and 80s; and the sustained period of economic growth in the1990s.

1 This includes not only those moving to and from non-metropolitan NSW, but also those to and from other parts of

Australia. 2 The Australian settlement system, on a State-by-State basis, has a pronounced level of what geographers call ‘metropolitan primacy’ (Rose, 1966). This means that the largest cities in the system, in the Australian case the State capitals, are much bigger than the next largest centres in the respective States. In NSW, Sydney at 4 million people represents around 60 percent of the State’s population. High levels of primacy also characterise Victoria, WA and SA. Exceptions are Queensland, where you have a series of large towns up the coast partly because Brisbane is eccentrically located in the State’s southeast corner, Tasmania and the NT where in each case you have two large towns, but not much else.

4

The 1950s and 1960s: post World War II industrialisation and the long economic boom Big city growth compared with smaller cities, towns and rural areas accelerated after WWII as the Australian manufacturing sector grew rapidly. This expansion was based on strong increases in business and household demand during the long economic boom of the 1950s and 1960s and high levels of tariff protection from imports (Logan et al., 1981). Immigration, which ran at high levels in that period, largely favoured the cities where jobs in the factories and the lower echelons of the service economy were booming (Burnley, 1974). At the same time, job loss in the rural economy was accelerating due to increased use of machinery in place of labour. There was also increasing realisation on the part of many younger people and their parents that their financial prospects were better in the cities. Resulting rural-urban drift produced a political response in the decentralisation policies of the 1960s. These reached their high water mark in the regional growth centres at Bathurst-Orange and Albury-Wodonga in the early 1970s (Stilwell, 1974).3

Small town decline, usually involving urban centres with populations less than 5000, which is very much part of the doom and gloom discourse around rural and regional Australia today, was in fact initiated in the 1950s and 60s by a combination of factors (Henshall Hansen, 1988). Road improvements, increased car ownership and services growth in larger regional centres combined to encourage farmers and residents of small towns and villages to bypass those places to shop and access services in the regional cities.

At the same time, metropolitan affluence produced by the long economic boom of the 1950s and 60s produced benefits for rural and regional Australia. As well as increased demand for food and fibre products there were notable increases in domestic tourism in a period when overseas travel for recreational purposes was still very much the province of the rich (Murphy, 1992). Building on established coastal and near-metropolitan districts, booming car ownership, disposable income and leisure time combined to geographically widen the range of domestic tourism and increase its numbers overall. This was a period of no frills, democratic weekender-homes and the nucleus of coastal sprawl (Murphy, 1977). The sprawl is still there but the weekenders today are more likely to be designer homes or apartments because building regulations are much tighter, many people have a lot more money to spend and the general demography of the resident may have changed.

One aspect of change in non-metropolitan areas themselves that further enhanced the attraction of metropolitan interest during this period was Britain’s entry to the European Economic Community (EEC). This led to a contraction in the dairy industry in remote areas on the north and south coasts of NSW and in Victoria’s Gippsland. As farmers left the land, a lot of cheap, isolated farmland provided toeholds for alternative-lifestylers from the early 1970s, most publicly visible in the Nimbin area in northern NSW (Munro-Clark, 1986). Whilst small scale in the overall spectrum of non-metropolitan change these bridgeheads of counter-culture settlement remain the focal point for alternative lifestyle settlers today.

The 1970s and 1980s: Economic restructuring and first phase population turnaround

But just as Federal and State governments in Victoria and NSW were increasing their commitment to regional development with the early 70s growth centres, far reaching economic and demographic forces began to make themselves felt in Australia. Job growth in the manufacturing sector came to a halt in the early 70s and a process of major job shedding was initiated. This marked the transformation to a post-industrial, globalised Australian economy that had significant regional implications (Murphy and Watson, 1995). For decentralisation policy it meant that the manufacturing jobs that had underpinned policy in the 60s dried up; so if regional development was to be fostered it would need to find some other growth motor. As well as this, the change of Federal Government in 1975, combined with a more sophisticated understanding

3 Loss of population from rural areas also took place in the 1920s when commodity prices were low and people were forced off the land during the Great Depression. Despite this, however, “there was actually a slackening and short term reversal of the longer term trend toward urbanisation in Australia during the Depression when the nation’s rural population reached a pre-War peak” (Hugo and Bell, 1998, 107).

5

of what could and could not be achieved by regional policy, meant that government interest in top-down, big spending regional development programs evaporated (Vipond, 1989).

As it turned out, the need for interventionist top-down policy seemed to have been made redundant by the discovery of what portended to be a major demographic shift in the mid- 1970s. This was the so-called population turnaround (Champion, 1989) and it refers to the fact that non-metropolitan areas were now attracting increased shares of national population growth and the shares of State population contained in the capitals were contracting. This historic transformation of the demographic balance between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas was heralded as signalling a market-driven resurgence of non-metropolitan areas as places in which to live and work. Since the 1970s, approximately one million people have left the five mainland capitals for smaller places with 450,000 leaving Sydney alone (Burnley and Murphy, forthcoming). Together with the more pressing concern for the overall state of the transforming Australian economy and its welfare implications, interest in rural and regional Australia went onto the back burner.

In the 1970s, de-industrialisation, driven by global economic processes and reinforced by decreased tariff protection from 1975, was the buzzword in academic, public policy and media circles. The early 1980s marked another shift in discourses around urban and regional development with the term globalisation entering academic and popular parlance. From the early 80s notions of ‘global cities’ took hold and it was realised that a new round of capitalist accumulation was in full swing and that its natural home was once more the larger cities. Paralleling this it was noted that the population turnaround had contracted (Hugo, 1994). This did not mean that fewer people were leaving the cities, rather the cities were more than making up for losses from internal migration by gains from immigration and natural increase (Burnley and Murphy, forthcoming).

These reciprocal processes underpinned the emergence of a new round of political conversations centred on the metropolitan/non-metropolitan divide. Once again the big cities were dominating the Australian economy whilst rural and regional Australia was losing out, or at best receiving a lesser share of benefits flowing from national economic growth. The economic and social problems of the bush and the rise of populist political resistance to economic and social change in Australia, signalled by the Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party bursting onto the political scene, are of course intimately related.

Since the 1990s: Population Turnaround: Phase 2 Despite these trends a Mark 2 turnaround appears to be in evidence today. There is considerable evidence, much of it ad hoc and as yet under-researched, of a new round of spillover effects from metropolitan to non-metropolitan regions. The benefits of growth created in the big cities in the 1980s and 90s have for some time been translated into new growth impulses in the bush. These benefits are of two kinds: those that involve metropolitan demand for non-metropolitan resources and those that involve people relocating from metropolitan to non-metropolitan settings. People are still leaving the cities in significant numbers despite the demographic balance having shifted back to the cities. Indeed, whilst the numbers fluctuate, more people moved out of Sydney to non-metropolitan NSW in the last intercensal period, 1991 to 1996, than moved out in any other five-year period from 1971 to 1986 (Burnley and Murphy, forthcoming).

Who is moving? There are various types of people moving away from the cities and they may be classified into two broad categories: the free agents and the forced relocators. Whilst this over-simplifies the complexity of the process of metropolitan to non-metropolitan migration it offers a basis for discussion.

Free agents Retirees have for decades been the driving force of population growth in non-metropolitan localities. Places like Port Macquarie on the NSW north coast owe up to a third of their population growth to retirees (Murphy, 1981). These people are driven by the benefits of trading down from high priced city houses and the attractions of a low-key lifestyle in a high amenity environment (Murphy and Zehner, 1988). Some of these folk are returning to places where they

6

were born and raised but most are not. They represent only a small part of the city’s ageing population but have a large demographic effect in non-metropolitan localities where the base population is small. However, it must be noted that there is also strong evidence that many of these retirees return to the city on the death of a spouse or at the onset of disability (Hugo, 1986). This appears to be related to a wish to be close to family when there is a need for social and physical support in the latter years, as well as to have access to appropriate services.

Alternative lifestylers were an important though quite localised component of the population turnaround in the 1970s, in NSW focusing on places like Nimbin on the north coast (Munro-Clark, 1986). Theirs was and is a largely rural lifestyle, to some degree self-sufficient and often dependent on income-support payments. These days, however, whilst the trend continues, the notion of an alternative lifestyle has broadened considerably. At one end of the spectrum are the capital ‘A’ alternatives, the visually obvious counter-culture types. At the other end are the small ‘a’ alternatives that a casual observer would not necessarily mark out from the mainstream without engaging them in conversation. Just as gentrification was the precursor of the boom in inner-city apartment living that the larger cities are experiencing today, because of its demonstration effect on those who previously regarded suburban living in a detached house as the only sensible living arrangement so, it may be argued, the hippy scene convinced many people of the virtues of a non-metropolitan lifestyle (Murphy, 2002).

However, the development of massively improved communication and transport technologies has made it possible for many in the New Economy, who have home-based businesses and use the internet as an alternate and partial alternative to commuting, not to have to be located in central business districts in order to carry out their businesses. This has freed up new groups of movers to exercise lifestyle options and move to attractive non-metropolitan (especially coastal) locations. Similarly, the massive growth of the Australian tourist industry has favoured the growth of attractive non-metropolitan areas (Murphy, 2002).

Inspection of the age profile of movers to non-metropolitan places shows that by far the majority (around 70 percent) are actually of working age and this has been increasing (Burnley and Murphy, forthcoming). The primary reason for this is that retirees and tourists need goods and services that permit others to move away from the city and make a decent living. These people also of course get the advantages of cheaper housing and high levels of amenity.

Forced relocators As well as those who more or less opt with enthusiasm for non-metropolitan lifestyles there are those who are arguably forced to live away from the cities because their incomes are too low to enable them to live in appropriate and affordable housing. There is some ambiguity here because some, at least in the categories just referred to, might regard themselves as having been forced out of the city. But there is one category of low-income earners where the notion of forcing may have some real back up (Hugo and Bell, 1998). These are the people who rely on some form of income-support payment, especially the unemployed, single parent households and those with disabilities. The statistics leave no doubt that localities both near the metropolis and more distant from it have high levels of unemployment and disproportionate numbers of single parent households.

More generally the notion that people are being forced to leave the city is supported when the relationship over time between net internal migration loss from the cities and housing prices is examined. Figures 1 to 4 below show interrelationships between house prices, internal migration trends and immigration trends. Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth are included as these are Australia’s largest market cities (Canberra’s economy is largely that of a government town).

In order to fully interpret the nature of these time series the changing forms of economic relationships between Australian cities and their hinterlands need to be comprehended and are explained below. For the purposes of this paper it is the relationships between net internal migration from the cities (numbers of people moving in from other parts of Australia minus those moving out) and housing prices that are pertinent. Because of the importance of immigration to Australian metropolitan population growth and the possible implications this has for house price inflation this variable is also included in the figures. Visual analysis suggests that there has been a strong correlation between immigration and price levels and no obvious lag effects. This is consistent with the interpretation that immigration translates more or less directly into demand

7

for housing and that since supply is inelastic in the short-run, price inflation results. The correlation of net internal migration with house prices is also clearly strong but negative and lagged: when prices rise internal migration decreases (due to increased out-migration and reduced in-migration) but this effect lags slightly behind price increases. This is logical since it takes time for people to register price increases and then decide either to move from a city or to delay moving into one. The causal question is whether people move out of the cities because prices are beyond their means or whether they move when prices are high so as to maximise capital gains (if owners) from sales. Another hypothesis is that when economic conditions are strong (which is the case when immigration and price inflation are high) people feel confident in moving. These are open questions in the literature (reviewed by Murphy, Burnley and Fagan 1997) since survey research is required to get beyond statistical correlations of time series data.

Figure 1. Immigration, Internal Migration and House Prices, Sydney, 1980-1999

-50000

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Average Median House Price Overseas Migration Internal Migration

Figure 2. Immigration, Internal Migration and House Prices, Melbourne, 1980-1999

-50000

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999


The associations are much the same for the four cities but there are some particular contrasts that are relevant to the present study. First and most obviously, prices and immigration levels in Sydney are much higher than in the other cities with Melbourne ranking next and Brisbane and Perth some way below that. Second, in all years Sydney experienced net internal migration losses, whereas of the other cities, only Perth did in the boom immigration period in the late 1980s. So the combination of high prices and high immigration in the case of Sydney is certainly associated with significant and sustained, though variable, losses to elsewhere in NSW and Australia.

8

Figure 3. Immigration, Internal Migration and House Prices, Brisbane, 1980-1999

-50000

0

50000

100000

150000

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999


Figure 4. Immigration, Internal Migration and House Prices, Perth, 1980-1999*

-50000

0

50000

100000

150000

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999


*Missing data for internal migration for 1989, 1990.

As noted there is a strong correlation between house price levels and immigration as seen in the late 1980s in Perth. Immigration translates more or less directly into increased demand for housing and as a result, price inflation occurs since supply is inelastic in the short-term. Since the early 1990s it is notable that whilst immigration has been down, housing prices have increased across the four cities yet net internal migration figures have remained stable. This may be the result of strong economic conditions in the 1990s that have created most job and business opportunities in the cities thus stemming out-migration but driving house price inflation.

Data from various sources have been used in the four figures. Immigration has been estimated by attributing State-level settlement statistics (gleaned from the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, various years) to cities in proportion to shares of recent overseas born at census years. No annual data are published as to where immigrants settle at sub-state levels. Internal migration has been determined with estimates calculated using the residual method i.e., calculating natural increase (births minus deaths) and subtracting this from Estimated Resident Population (from ABS data of various years). House prices have been determined using Real Estate Institute data.

9

2 THE LITERATURE Internal migration research and theory development has been reluctant to examine issues of the socioeconomic effects of population movement and indeed the class dimensions of mobility generally. Research has focused on describing and predicting the spatial patterning of movement, the age, gender, birthplace, labour force and education characteristics of movers and the macro and micro economic determinants of that movement. Much is known about all of these areas in the Australian context (e.g., see Rowland, 1979; Bell, 1992, 1995; Bell and Cooper, 1995; Bell and Maher, 1995; Bell and Hugo, 2000; Jarvie, 1985, 1989a, 1989b; Salt, 1992) but work on the impacts of movement and particularly that in non-metropolitan areas remains limited (e.g., see Burnley, Pryor and Rowland, 1980; Newton and Bell, 1996). This project seeks to make a contribution in this area by investigating the role that internal migration is playing in influencing income levels of people living in different parts of non-metropolitan Australia and to elucidate the implications of the processes for improving the well-being and welfare of their populations.

In the United States there is growing recognition of the significance of migration of the poor as an influence upon the level and spatial distribution of rural poverty. On the one hand it has been convincingly demonstrated that the poor, less educated and least skilled are under-represented among the people leaving depressed rural areas (Cromartie, 1993, Garkovich, 1989, Lichter et al., 1994). On the other hand there is also some evidence of the poor being an important element in urban to rural migration (Johansen and Fuguitt, 1984, Lichter et al., 1995, Fitchen, 1995). Fitchen (1995) in a case study of a depressed rural community in New York shows that this community has become a migration destination for both migrants from urban and other rural areas causing dramatic increases in the poverty rate, welfare rolls and service needs. Her research indicated that cheap housing provided the main attraction to newcomers while the lack of local jobs was not a deterrent since many of the newcomers had limited job skills and would have had trouble getting and keeping a job anyway.

Recent research (e.g., Nord, 1996) in the United States has also indicated that there is little difference in the overall level of mobility of the poor and non-poor or in the distances that they are prepared to move. However, it has been found that the poor are more likely to move from cities to rural areas than better-off people and this has contributed to the increasing poverty rate in rural counties. Nord, Luloff and Jensen (1995, 410) found that migration patterns of both the poor and non-poor consistently reinforced pre-existing poverty concentrations and they make the provocative argument that “to a large extent, spatial concentrations of poverty persist not because of the unwillingness of the poor to migrate out of high poverty areas but rather because of their propensity to migrate into such areas.” Their finding that there is a ‘spatial sorting’ of poor and non-poor in all migration streams needs to be tested in the Australian context since it has important theoretical as well as policy implications. (See also Birrell and Rapson 2001).

Another perspective on in-migration to non-metropolitan areas is given by Cromartie and Nord (1997) who found that in the United States in the post-1990 period the higher incomes of in-migrants compared with out-migrants contributed to increased levels of non-metropolitan per capita income. They also found significant differentials across regions. Counties that are experiencing rising incomes as a result of migration were concentrated on the suburban fringe of expanding metropolitan areas and in areas of high natural amenity while those with a declining income as a result of migration are concentrated in the Great Plains, the Corn Belt, the western Appalachians and the south west coastal plain. They used data from the US Internal Revenue Service as did Plane (1999) in a study of the impact of internal migration on income redistribution between States. He develops a procedure to split income change into components attributable to various migration effects. He demonstrates that migration significantly and differentially impacts upon US States. Rodgers and Rodgers (1997) demonstrate that rural to urban migration in the United States results in permanent increases in real earnings of the migrant themselves. Wenk and Hardesty (1995) investigated the effect of rural to urban migration on poverty status of youth in the US and found that such migration reduces the time spent in poverty for women but the effects are not statistically significant for men.

Some of the most important contributions in this area come from Frey (1994a, 1994b, 1995a, 1995b, 1995c, 1997), Frey and Liaw (1998), Frey, Liaw and Lin (1998) and Frey et al. (1995).

10

They have closely analysed the migration of the poor between states in the United States and shown that there is a significant out-migration of the poverty population from states which are experiencing high levels of immigration. The fact that, unlike Australia, the United States welfare system varies between states has led to an important research question being whether states offering more generous or comprehensive welfare programs become magnets for poor migrants from other states that have more limited programs. Hanson and Hartman (1994) addressed this question by examining the Current Population Survey for the 1980s and found no evidence to support the so-called welfare-magnet hypothesis. They conclude that in the United States poor people do not move from one state to another to receive more public assistance and that, in fact, the poor are unlikely to move out of their home state. This is in contrast to the findings of studies in the 1960s and 1970s which suggested that there was a positive influence of welfare benefits levels or generous eligibility criteria, on migration of the disadvantaged.

However, Torrecilha and Sandefur (1990) have demonstrated that these studies suffer from a number of methodological limitations. They used data on Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) to examine the welfare magnet hypothesis and found that there was no difference between advantaged and disadvantaged groups in their propensity to leave individual states nor is there any difference between the groups in their likelihood of moving to high benefit states. A study of net migration within New York State found a moderate relationship with public sustenance variables but concludes that “manipulating public assistance organisations via public policy changes would probably have less of an effect on net migration than would a change in private sustenance organisations” (Hirschl, Poston and Frisbie, 1990, 15). Overall however, as Clark (1989) has pointed out, the research literature in the US has failed to produce compelling evidence that individuals migrate in order to collect generous welfare payments.

An interesting study was undertaken by Clark (1989) whereby instead of focusing upon the destination areas of migrants she examined conditions in the area of origin in her analysis of the relationship between migration and welfare. She focused on sole mothers and found that the availability of high welfare payments in a state inhibits the migration of both current welfare recipients and non-recipients. Rives et al. (1983) show that the low cost of living at the destination is an important factor shaping the migration of the older population and this factor is more likely to be of significance in Australia.

Turning to Australia there has been only limited examination of migration and income effects in this country. The major work has been by Wulff and Bell (1997) based on the 1991 Population Census internal migration data and the 1992 ABS Family Survey and examines the migration patterns of low-income groups. This had a number of important findings including the fact that persons receiving unemployment benefits and sole parent pensions have higher mobility than those in paid work. They found that spatial patterns of net migration gain and loss differed markedly between employed workers and the unemployed, there were net out-movements of low-income groups from Sydney and Melbourne and net gains in many non-metropolitan regions. Somewhat earlier Hugo (1989a 1989b) put forward the welfare-led hypothesis to assist in the explanation of counter-urbanisation in Australia. This suggests that a significant component of population growth in Australian non-metropolitan areas is due to the immigration, and retention, of low-income groups. An important element in this movement is of people receiving some form of transfer payments from government that are equally available across the entire nation and totally portable, and a major attraction is the lower cost of living, especially cheaper housing. This hypothesis was further developed and expanded by Hugo and Bell (1998). The significance of differential housing affordability in this process was underlined by the survey work of Burnley (1988) in the north east of NSW.

The poverty/welfare-led hypothesis should not be seen purely in terms of ‘economic-push’, since there is undoubtedly a contingent of people on low incomes or reliant upon transfer payments who decide to relocate to a congenial environment in non-metropolitan areas for amenity reasons. This is especially the case for transfer recipients at or near retirement age. One of the most clearly documented components of counter-urbanisation is the movement of former metropolitan residents in their 50s and 60s to non-metropolitan locations upon retirement or semi-retirement (Drysdale, 1991, Murphy and Zehner, 1988, Murphy, 1981, Neyland and Kendig, 1996, Pollard, 1996, Burnley, 1996). The significance of transfer payment recipients in the inflows of non-metropolitan areas has been identified (e.g., Flood, 1992, Wulff and Newton,

11

1996, Wulff and Bell, 1997). Hugo and Bell (1998) have demonstrated using 1991 census internal migration data that low-income earners have played a major role in the process of counter-urbanisation in Australia whereas in Sydney there were net migration gains of high-income earners but net migration losses of all lower income groups.

More recently a new data source has been developed to shed light on this issue. This is the Longitudinal Data Set of clients of the Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services and its potential for analysis of the internal migration of pension and other transfer recipients has been demonstrated by Morrow (2000). This shows that more disability support pensioners leave capital cities than move to them and there are net gains of the group in particular areas, especially coastal NSW and southern Queensland. There is evidence too of low-income migration into non-metropolitan areas of New Zealand (Waldegrave and Stuart, 1997).

Mobility of Welfare Recipients Morrow (2000) has recently analysed the mobility of some welfare recipients in the workforce ages, making use of FaCS’ Longitudinal Data Set. Some of his results are summarised in Table 2 and compared with some 1996 census data for the entire population.

Table 2. Australia: Annual Mobility Rates of Selected Groups

Population Group Mobility Rate

Per Annum (%)

Unemployment Benefit Recipients (UBR) (1996-1997) 15.4

Single Parent Pension (SPP) (1996-1997) 12.9

Disability Support Pension (DP) (1996-1997) 7.6

All Persons 5+ (1995-1996) 18.3

Workforce (1995-1996) 19.4

Source: Bell and Hugo, 2000; Morrow, 2000

These data indicate that the three groups receiving government transfers have moved at lower rates than the total population. Moreover, the 1996 census found that all renters moved at a much higher rate than other tenure groups. In fact, in 1996 renters made up 27.5 percent of households but they made up more than a half of movers in 1995-1996 (Bell and Hugo, 2000, 48). Hence the welfare recipients had lower than average annual rates of moving, although those on Unemployment Benefits (UB) moved at higher rates than either Sole Parent Pension (SPP) or Disability Support Pension (DSP) recipients.

12

Figure 5. Mobility of Welfare Recipients by Age by Sex, 1996-1997

Source: Morrow, 2000, 12

*Unemployment Benefit (UB), Disability Support Pension (DSP), Sole Parent Pension (SPP)

Morrow (2000) further analysed mobility rates by age and sex and their pattern is shown in Figure 5. There are typically small numbers of male single parents and so caution must be used when interpreting this information. However, the mobility of the young, male single parent may be attributed to them simply being in a mobile age group and further by them attempting to find paid employment. The overall patterns differ significantly from the mobility of the total population as is demonstrated in Figure 6. It indicates that there is a much more pronounced peaking in the young adult years among the total population. Indeed, for most of the welfare recipient groups there is a monotonic decline from the teen years with age. The final mobility of the elderly would likely be attributed to them moving to more appropriate housing, care facilities or moving closer to their support network of family and friends.

Figure 6. Australia: Mobility Rates by Age, 1971-1976, 1991-1996 and 1995-1996

Source: Bell and Hugo, 2000

13

Morrow (2000, 15) also investigated regional variants in mobility rates that are shown in Figure 7. This indicates that there was only minor variations between different settlement types in the mobility of welfare recipients, although the highest rates are in the rural and remote areas.

Figure 7. Mobility Rates of Welfare Recipients by Regional Classification


*Inner middle capital could be defined as the central area of a state capital city and the outer capital as the areas on the perimeter of the city and in the perimetropolitan areas associated with the location.

Figure 8. Mobility Rates of Welfare Recipients by Socio-Economic Indicators for Areas (SEIFA) Quartiles


Figure 8 shows that there is an inverse relationship between level of mobility and socioeconomic status among welfare recipients.

As Morrow (2000, 18) points out, “this may be viewed in a number of ways. Firstly, it may represent a poverty trap, that clients living in disadvantaged areas have found accommodation that is suitable to their needs at an affordable price, or conversely do not have the resources to leave such an area to find more suitable accommodation. In the same way, the high mobility

14

rates in areas of low socio-economic disadvantage may be the result of a prohibitive cost of living.”

Table 3. Rent Paid by Welfare Recipients in Dollars per Fortnight, 1996-1997

Rent Paid ($) – September 1996 Difference ($) – September 1997

Non-Movers Movers Non-Movers Movers

UB 181.35 178.89 2.23 5.49

SPP 237.88 235.11 4.77 8.06

DSP 182.46 193.04 2.46 -1.33


Morrow (2000, 31-33) also examines the housing costs of welfare recipients. These are presented in Table 3 and show that among Unemployment Benefit (UB) recipients, movers tend to have had lower rent than non-movers at the beginning of the year before moving, but higher costs after moving. This was also the case for Single Parent Pensioners (SPP) but not for Disability Support Pensioners (DSP). This is not contradictory to the information gathered the social survey conducted for this AHURI project, as discussed later in the document.

Initial Longitudinal Data Set Findings We now turn to an analysis of the relocation patterns of income-support recipients drawn from the LDS covering moves made between December 1999 and December 2000. The compilation of these tables required operational definitions of metropolitan and non-metropolitan postcodes for each of the Australian States and Territories. This task was accomplished by the Key Centre for Social Applications in GIS, University of Adelaide, and was directed by one of the co-authors, Graeme Hugo.

Table 4. Movers From Metropolitan to Non-Metropolitan Areas by Income-Support Type for all States and Territories

Metro to Non-Metro Income-Support Type

ACT NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC WA

Unemployed 96 4,866 700 5,030 1,864 680 4,805 3,039

Youth Unemployed 16 1,000 122 1,422 485 233 1,009 811

Single Parents 112 3,336 252 3,075 1,201 356 3,134 1,903

Disabled 52 2,866 166 2,525 1,131 294 2,729 1,369

Aged Pension 78 4,060 86 2,341 999 195 3,566 1,531

Totals 354 16,128 1,326 14,393 5,680 1,758 15,243

8,653

Source: FaCS 2001

Table 4 shows the numbers of recipients, by FaCS income-support payment categories, who moved from metropolitan to non-metropolitan areas in each Australian State and Territory. In themselves the numbers do not mean much other than to support the contention that there are many people involved in each of the categories. Of particular note are the States of NSW and SA on which the social survey focussed. Just over 16,000 and 5,600 income-support recipients left Sydney and Adelaide respectively, and moved to non-metropolitan NSW and SA.

The following tables provide a basis for interpretation by relating the numbers to counter-flows from non-metropolitan areas to the cities and by relating the scale of outflows to the size of source and destination populations of income-support recipients.

15

Table 5. Relative Percentages of Movers of State and Territory Totals by Income-Support Type

Metro to Non-Metro % of Total State Recipients


Unemployed 27% 30% 53% 35% 33% 39% 32% 35%

Youth Unemployed 5% 6% 9% 10% 9% 13% 7% 9%

Single Parents 32% 21% 19% 21% 21% 20% 21% 22%

Disabled 15% 18% 13% 18% 20% 17% 18% 16%

Aged Pension 22% 25% 6% 16% 18% 11% 23% 18%

Totals 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Source: FaCS 2001

Table 5 shows the proportions of movers by client type to give a better sense of how the out-flows vary across Australia. Notable features are:

• The Northern Territory had the highest percentage of unemployed people in its metropolitan outflow (53%) whilst the ACT had the lowest percent (27%) relative to the other states and territory.

• The difference in relative proportions of youth unemployed across the States and Territories was unremarkable, although Tasmania was the highest at 13% and the ACT was the lowest, at 5%.

• All States and Territories had about the same percentage of single parent recipients in their outflows, except for the ACT which had about 10% higher than the others.

• All States and Territories had a similar proportion of disabled recipients in their outflows.

• NSW had the highest proportion of aged recipients (at 25%) with the Northern Territories the lowest at 6%.

• NSW and Victoria had the same order of proportions of support recipients i.e., both had their highest percentage as the unemployed, followed by the aged, single parents, disabled and youth unemployed.

• The NT and Tasmania also had the same order of relative percentages of support recipients, i.e., both had their highest percentage as unemployed, followed by single parents, disabled, youth unemployed and the aged.

• Queensland and South Australia were similar to each other - both had their highest percentage as unemployed, followed by single parents, disabled, then the aged and youth unemployed.

• The ACT was different from all States and Territories in that its highest proportion of income-support recipients was not unemployed, like all the others, but rather single parents.

Table 6. Net Gains to Non-metropolitan Areas for Each State and Territory by Income-Support Type

Net Gains to Non-Metro Areas


Unemployed -60 855 181 438 -287 31 366 53

Youth Unemployed

-31 126 15 13 -232 5 -164 -19

Single Parents 10 676 26 331 -136 -38 308 116

Disabled -17 805 -1 483 139 -64 693 243

Aged Pension 9 2,128 19 816 62 -41 1,236 452

16

Totals -89 4,590 240 2,081 -454 -107 2,439 845

Source: FaCS 2001

Table 6 shows net flows (movements out of the city minus movements into the city) by payment category for each of the States and Territories and a number of features stand out:

• There were substantial counter-flows of income-support recipients from metropolitan to non-metropolitan areas.

• The counter-flows, for the most part, were weakest in the case of aged pensioners, which was to be expected since job opportunities are much less likely to be an issue for them, their life situation is more or less stable and because mobility patterns are much lower for the aged than for younger cohorts.

• Comparing NSW and SA, the States in which the social survey was undertaken, shows stronger counter-flows to Adelaide in all categories. This was surprising since job opportunities are relatively weak there. Perhaps the strength of housing factors motivating migration from the cities is weaker so people were less inhibited in returning.

• Net gains to non-metropolitan NSW were significantly larger than in Victoria despite the size of the outflows from Melbourne being only marginally smaller in Victoria. This lends support to the previous conjecture that the effect of housing costs may be less of a factor in Melbourne than Sydney.

Table 7. Outflows from Metro Areas as Proportions of Metro Recipients for State and Territory Totals by Income-Support Type

Outflows from Metro Areas as Proportions of Metro Recipients


Unemployed 2% 8% 32% 18% 5% 16% 7% 11%


Single Parents 2% 7% 19% 18% 6% 15% 8% 12%

Disabled 1% 4% 12% 10% 3% 7% 4% 6%

Aged Pension 1% 2% 5% 3% 1% 2% 1% 2%

Totals 1% 4% 19% 10% 3% 7% 3% 6%

Source: FaCS 2001

Table 7 indicates outflows from the cities to non-metropolitan areas as a percentage of the numbers of people in income-support categories resident in the cities. These might be regarded as emission-rate indicators. Focussing on the mainland States shows a number of contrasts:

• Outflows from Brisbane represent a much higher proportion of source populations than was the case in the other States. This seems likely to be an anomaly arising from how Brisbane was defined which excluded the Gold and Sunshine Coasts, but, by reasonable assessment, are really part of Brisbane’s perimetropolitan region.

• Outflows in all categories represent a larger proportion of base metropolitan populations in NSW than in SA.

• Outflows from Sydney were higher proportions of base populations than was the case of Melbourne. Both this and the previous point support the notion of people needing or wanting to relocate from Sydney to a greater extent than from the smaller capitals.

17

Table 8. Inflows to Non-Metro Areas as Proportions of Non-Metro Recipients for State and Territory Totals by Income-Support Type

Inflows to Non-Metro Areas as Proportions of Non-Metro Recipients


Unemployed 16% 4% 6% 5% 9% 4% 8% 10%


Single Parents 16% 4% 6% 4% 9% 4% 7% 7%

Disabled 7% 2% 5% 3% 6% 2% 4% 5%

Aged Pension 4% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2%

Totals 9% 2% 5% 3% 5% 2% 4% 5%

Source: FaCS 2001

Table 8 expresses inflows from the cities to non-metropolitan areas as a percentage of the numbers of people in income-support categories in non-metropolitan areas. These might be regarded as local-impact indicators. Focussing on the mainland States again shows a number of contrasts:

• The most notable was that flows from Sydney were less important in most or all categories for non-metropolitan NSW than was the case for non-metropolitan areas in other States. Given the relative strength of flows from Sydney this seems surprising but implies that the base non-metro populations in the income-support categories in NSW are larger vis-à-vis the other States. This could be the result of a longer-term process of out-migration of lower-income earners from Sydney.

• The contrast noted in the previous point is particularly marked in the case of SA vis-à-vis NSW.

18

3 SURVEY METHODOLOGY A social survey was conducted of income-support recipients to determine the relative importance of housing costs in their residential location decisions and how their moves out of Sydney and Adelaide to non-metro NSW and SA affected their net welfare. With limited resources, the survey focused on NSW and South Australia. The level of out-migration from Sydney is higher than for other Australian cities and Sydney’s housing prices are by far the highest (as shown in Figures 1-4). The extent to which people are being forced out by high housing prices is likely to be most sharply manifest there. But the phenomenon of low-income out-migration is evident around Australia so the inclusion of one other State in the study was designed to assess the extent to which housing costs are a relocation factor elsewhere in Australia. For the second State it was decided to focus on South Australia because whilst Adelaide is a relatively small city and the State has not benefited to the same degree as NSW, Victoria, Western Australia and Queensland from the national economic development of the past 30 years or so, it nevertheless experiences substantial out-migration of income-support recipients.

The survey focused on income-support recipients (aged, unemployed, disabled, single parents) since these people were likely to most intensely feel the results of high housing prices. Operationally these choices made it efficient to identify a sample of movers from Centrelink databases that enabled direct identification of income-support recipient movers from defined metropolitan postcodes to non-metropolitan localities. The postcodes used to define the survey boundaries of metropolitan Sydney and Adelaide and non-metropolitan NSW and SA are listed in Appendix Five.

The research assumed the completion of between 1000 and 2500 self-administered, mail-back questionnaires by income-support recipients who moved from metropolitan Sydney and Adelaide to non-metropolitan NSW and SA, respectively, and who were in receipt of a Commonwealth government benefit payment both before and after relocation. A copy of the questionnaire is attached (Appendix One). To achieve this number of returns, 7000 movers were selected from Centrelink’s current database of its income-support recipients. An expected response rate of up to 35 percent was based on recent FaCS experience with client surveys. The sample was stratified to include the aged, single parents, disabled, and unemployed (including unemployed youth but excluding full-time students). Centrelink was able to identify (name and address), for each income-support type, how many clients moved within in a 12-month period out of a metropolitan postcode to a non-metropolitan postcode. Although FaCS is responsible for payments made by Centrelink, it was Centrelink payment data that provided the names and addresses of the survey sample.

The sample was drawn in such a way to obtain sufficient returns for each income-support category from NSW and SA to enable reliable conclusions to be drawn from the data. Because of the relatively small numbers of movers from Adelaide to non-metropolitan SA, and variation in numbers of recipients moving in each of the categories in both NSW and SA, over-sampling in some categories was deemed necessary. Of 4900 questionnaires dispatched to NSW residents, 1117 were returned for a response rate of 23%. Of 2100 questionnaires sent to SA movers, 376 were returned for a response rate of 18%. Overall, the combined survey response rate was 21%. The exact number of questionnaires dispatched by income-support type and State are noted in Appendix Four. Our research team was satisfied with the overall response rate given the population sampled had recently moved and may be less inclined to complete a personal questionnaire. The idea to send out a greater number of questionnaires than originally thought, but not to mail out a reminder notice was a process that has seemed to achieve reasonable results. This process was adopted for FaCS client anonymity, confidentiality and financial reasons. Only one of 7000 mailout packages was ‘returned to sender.’

How representative are the survey results of the situations encountered by all income-support recipient movers in NSW and SA? There is no reason to believe unsurveyed income-support recipients would have circumstances that are significantly different from those who responded to the survey. Nor is there reason to conjecture different relocation factors when deciding to move to non-metropolitan areas. This research surveyed approximately 30% of income-support metro to non-metro movers in NSW and 37% of SA movers. Hence it is realistic to assume that the survey results are representative of income-support recipients moving from metropolitan to non-

19

metropolitan regions. No ‘honeymoon phase’ was detected by the movers based on how long it had been since they had moved away from the metro area, although some admitted it was too early to tell how much better off they were since moving.

Within the two States similar relative percentages were sampled from each income-support category. No spatial stratification was undertaken but sufficient numbers of returns were obtained from the various types of non-metropolitan regions (e.g., perimetropolitan, inland, coastal, regional city) to enable cross-regional comparisons in further research reports and journal publications.

Each ‘mover’ selected as part of the sample received a written subject information letter (as required by the UNSW and Adelaide University Ethics Committees), a questionnaire, and a reply-paid envelope for mailing back the survey. The subject information letter and questionnaire had extensive FaCS input and were reviewed with the project’s User Group and our contract survey company.

For privacy reasons, FaCS directed staff at Centrelink to sample its client base (as noted above) and organise the mailing process to potential respondents with a contracted, bonded firm. The research team designed the questionnaire, organised the overprint for a reply-paid envelope and the printing of the package of mailout materials.

Survey packages were mailed out in mid-January 2002 and collected until mid-March, 2002. Participation by income-support recipients was completely voluntary. Because a FaCS contract firm managed the mailout process to ensure confidentiality of its clients, the UNSW research team did not see names or addresses of potential respondents unless questionnaires were returned with names and addresses for entry into a draw prize of five $100 money orders. This identifying information and entry into the draw was also optional to ensure complete anonymity if a respondent so desired. Completed questionnaires were returned to the Faculty of the Built Environment, UNSW, for opening and sequential numbering.

When names and addresses were submitted, they were removed from the questionnaire and were kept in a locked cabinet in a locked office at UNSW. Prize draw winners (three from NSW and two from SA) were sent a cheque by mail. The completed questionnaires, (with no identifying information) were then sent in batches to a survey contract firm for data coding and entry into a computer statistical program. All names and addresses and valid questionnaires will be destroyed at the completion of the research program.

The data has been processed by whole count tables, comparative frequencies, selected crosstabulations and Pearson Chi-Square tests. These statistics and comparative frequencies were analysed by the research team for response rates, trends within NSW and SA and comparisons across the different income-support types. Qualitative information gathered from the survey process has been mined and is peppered throughout the next chapter in the report.

For ease of reading the charts, Disability Support Pension (DSP) recipients are labelled as ‘Disabled.’ Similarly, those receiving a Parenting Payment are labelled as ‘Single Parents’ or sole parent pensioners (SSP). Finally, the ‘Unemployed’ label in the charts includes Newstart Allowance, Youth Allowance and Mature Age Allowance recipients.

20

4 SURVEY FINDINGS

Approach to Analysis The questionnaire consisted of the following sections in order of presentation: personal and employment details, residential location history, social and economic relocation considerations, housing indicators, and lifestyle and place satisfaction post-relocation.

Frequency counts for each question are presented in Appendix Three. This includes responses for all questions except for the last open-ended one asking for general comments. These answers have been recorded but, in totality, are not part of this report. The research team can provide these upon request, although a range of comments from this question is found throughout this section of the report. For illustrative purposes, these ‘Quotable Quotes’ depict the sentiments of most respondents and add a rich qualitative dimension to the statistics presented. They give a sense of the feelings and emotions surrounding the respondents’ stories about their moves.

The exploration of any survey data normally suggests many interrelationships between variables that are best examined by means of crosstabulations. Whilst the interpretive strategy for this report is to focus on comparative frequencies, crosstabulations that yield depth to understanding are presented. Crosstabulations have been categorised by ‘income-support category’ and all other questions, and ‘state origin’ and all other questions. Other crosstabulations were run to specifically target the research questions posed. Chi-square analysis was undertaken on key crosstabulations (each income-support group was tested separately) to determine the statistical significance of the findings. The Chi-Square Test compares the observed and expected frequencies in each category to test either that all categories contain the same proportion of values or that each category contains a user-specified proportion of values. It indicates the extent to which the crosstabulated variables are independent, and the strength of the relationship. The significance level is based on the asymptotic distribution (Asymp. Sig.) of a test statistic typically when the data set is large, which this one is. Typically, a value of less than 0.05 is considered significant. A figure of .000 indicates a strong, direct relationship between the two variables. Only Chi-Square findings of <.05 are reported.

For all questions, unless otherwise stated, response rates have been calculated excluding non-responses and ‘not applicable’ answers. This provides the most relevant response pattern for each question. However, caution must be used where small denominators result which will inflate the relative importance of these answers. Intuitively, people are more keen to ensure that what is important to them is recorded than what is not important. Questions that offered respondents an opportunity to write in their own ‘other’ answer will always have an elevated importance attached to them. Naturally, if a respondent took the time to write in their own answer to an ‘other’ option, it would be very important to them.

For ease of reading, whilst ‘very important’ and ‘important’ nuances have been recorded independently for certain questions, the interpretation presented in the text is for combined totals (e.g., where respondents were asked to note the relative importance of a housing relocation factor on a Likert scale where there were very important, important, neutral, unimportant and very unimportant ratings to chose from, the categories have been collapsed into important, neutral and unimportant groups). This eases the interpretation of the figures. However, were significant findings exist, these are reported at a detailed level.

Finally, where complex figures exist, notes for correct interpretation are provided. All percentages within the report have been rounded to the nearest whole percent. Where appropriate, a total sample population number (N) is given for figures.

Framing the Survey Analysis The purpose of the social survey was to identify the motivations of, and tradeoffs made by, low-income households – specifically income-support recipients – who relocated from metropolitan cities to rural and regional Australia. In particular, the project sought to determine the importance of housing considerations relative to other factors in location choice and whether, in the search for appropriate and affordable housing, the net welfare of movers was affected and how it was affected. A further consideration was the extent to which relocation improved or worsened the

21

chances of ‘work ready’ income-support recipients (essentially the Unemployed and Single Parents) to obtain employment.

This chapter describes and interprets response patterns to questionnaire items in the context of the broad research aims and three key questions:

• Are low-income earners being forced out of metropolitan areas by unaffordable housing?

• Is there a net loss in a mover’s aggregate welfare after their relocation?

• Does a shift to non-metropolitan areas impact on the capacity of ‘work-ready’ income-support types to obtain paid employment?

Five key sections follow in this section of the chapter: the first highlights who the survey respondents were; this is followed by three sections, each based on one of the above research questions. Each of these sections starts with a summary of the general findings in relation to that question. The discussion is then unpacked in detail with charts, data and analysis for each component presented in three ways: data presented by aggregate numbers (which includes all respondents to any particular question); data presented by income-support type; and finally, by State of origin, namely SA and NSW. The last section of this chapter presents an overall discussion of the findings. (Where the Unemployed are referred to in this section of the report, this category includes those unemployed receiving a Newstart or Youth Allowance benefit. Whilst this latter group were specifically sampled, case responses were too low to report with validity or confidence. The income-support recipient numbers and percentages do not include respondents who identified themselves as ‘not receiving any benefits at this time,’ ‘not sure’ or did not answer the income-support identifying question.)

Respondent Characteristics This section presents a brief description of respondents in aggregate, by income-support type and by State. It covers personal details pre- and post-move, household composition, pre- and post-move employment status and residential location history. For a complete description of survey respondents refer to Appendix Four.

Aggregate Characteristics

• At the time the sample was drawn from Centrelink, in NSW plus SA, approximately 1.5 million people (unemployed, youth unemployed (excluding full-time students), disabled, single parents and aged pensioners) were receiving a Commonwealth Government payment. This research surveyed 30% - 37% of these income-support recipients who moved out of Sydney and Adelaide between December 2000 and December 2001.

• Three-quarters of the 1496 survey respondents were from NSW and one-quarter from SA.

• Of all respondents, 67% were female and 33% male.

• More than one-third of all respondents moved to a small town.

• A quarter of all respondents had previously lived in the non-metro area to which they moved.

• Only 14% of all respondents had lived in Sydney or Adelaide for less than one year when they last lived there.

• Of those respondents who were not born in Australia, 94% indicated they been in Australia for more than 10 years – 84% more than 20 years.

Income-Support Recipient Characteristics

• The income-support respondents included 34% Aged Pensioners, 25% Unemployed (of which 3% were Youth Unemployed), 21% Single Parents and 20% Disabled.

• Sixty-one percent of the Unemployed were under the age of 35 years.

• Not surprisingly, 96% of all Single Parents were female.

• Of all Single Parents, one-fifth were aged between 15-24 years, with almost half being under the age of 34 years.

22

• Two-thirds of all Aged Pensioners were female.

• In all income-support categories except Aged Pensioners 70%-74% of respondents were from NSW, and 26%-30% from SA. Eighty-two percent of Aged Pensioners were from NSW and 20% from SA.

• Aged Pensioners had the lowest percentage of individuals born in Australia at 68%. Of those not born in Australia, 91% had lived in Australia for 20+ years.

• Eighty-eight percent of Single Parents, and 85% of the Unemployed, were born in Australia.

• Twenty-eight percent more Single Parents defined themselves as being a sole parent with dependent child(ren) after relocating than before.

• Fourteen percent more Disabled respondents described themselves as single person households after moving out of Sydney and Adelaide than before.

• Fewer Unemployed, by 12%, lived with a group of unrelated adults after moving out of Sydney and Adelaide.

• Twenty percent of all Unemployed and 18% of Single Parents indicated they currently had some paid employment. Of the Unemployed, 74% worked less than 20 hours/week. Of the Single Parents 23% worked more than 30 hours/week.

• For all income-support types households, the main income earner, both before and after the move, was the pension recipient themselves.

• Parents of the Unemployed increased from 8% to 15% as the main income earner for this income-support type, suggesting that some of the Unemployed were moving back in with their parents.

• In contrast, 16% more Single Parents were the main income earner after moving to a non-metro area (changing from 76% to 92%) consistent with relationship breakdowns.

• Only 4% of Aged Pensioners indicated that a child was the main income earner in the household, before and after the move, suggesting that seniors are not moving in with their children who would likely be the main income earner.

• Aged Pensioners exhibited the highest proportion moving to a village (14%) and the smallest percentage moving to regional cities (8%). Comparatively, the Unemployed had the greatest percentage moving to rural areas (13%). Single Parents tended to move to small and large towns rather than villages and rural areas.

• The Unemployed were the movers who had spent the least amount of time in Sydney or Adelaide, with a quarter of them having lived there less than one year.

State Respondent Characteristics

• NSW did not have one survey respondent who had lived in Australia for less than 10 years – SA only had two.

• Seventy-seven percent of NSW respondents were Australian citizens, 68% in SA.

• Fewer individuals lived with a group of unrelated adults in non-metro NSW than they did when they lived in Sydney.

• Both States saw a decrease in the percent of income-support recipients who were a part of a couple with a dependent child or children after moving.

• Twenty-five percent fewer of NSW movers had some employment after moving from Sydney. Among the SA respondents, 14% fewer had some employment since moving from Adelaide.

• Given the prominence of regional cities in NSW, it is not surprising that a higher percentage of NSW respondents moved to large towns and regional cities than respondents from SA. More SA respondents moved to a village or a rural area compared to NSW movers.

• When asked where they spent most of their childhood nearly half (49%) of NSW respondents noted Sydney, and 37% of all SA respondents noted Adelaide. A very low percentage

23

(average of 10% for both States) had spent their childhood in the area in which they currently live.

• Sixty-three percent of NSW respondents had lived in Sydney for more than 10 years when they last lived there. SA movers were slightly less stable but still had nearly half of all respondents living in Adelaide for more than 10 years.

• In both States, approximately 15% of respondents had lived in Sydney and Adelaide for less than 1 year.

Housing Affordability as a Relocation Decision Factor Key Question: Are low-income earners being forced out of metropolitan areas by unaffordable housing? Summary:

The survey data supports the a priori expectation that housing affordability is a major factor in the decision by income-support recipients to relocate from metropolitan cities to non-metropolitan areas. There was some variation between income-support groups and between NSW and SA but this is at a level of detail. Survey respondents were not asked directly if they felt that they had been forced by housing costs to relocate but the significance accorded to affordability in relocation choice and the qualitative responses from respondents are consistent with a conclusion that for many income-support recipients relocating to non-metropolitan areas the relocation decision was based on the unavailability of affordable and appropriate housing in the metropolis. We recognise that this is not a definitive answer to the question but perhaps no such answer is possible without being too deterministic with regard to motivations for moving. The reality is that people are making choices and it is entirely possible that there were metropolitan housing alternatives but whether their choice would have meant a lower standard of living or less ideal lifestyle arrangements than they were able to achieve in non-metropolitan areas still remains a question.

Sixty-two percent of all respondents noted housing affordability as a key consideration in deciding to relocate to non-metropolitan NSW and SA. The NSW-SA contrasts vis-à-vis housing costs were consistent with presumptions about the relative significance of housing price differences between the two States. Housing costs are much higher in Sydney than in Adelaide. Prices were therefore more of a factor for NSW respondents in deciding to move. Two-thirds of NSW movers compared with half of SA movers indicated housing as a major factor in their decision to move. Of the different income-support groups, the housing cost factor was most important to Single Parents and least important for Aged Pensioners.

Beyond the housing cost factor, lifestyle factors and personal circumstances were also very influential in the decisions to relocate. These factors included wanting a better place in which to raise a family, a desire to live away from the city, increasing crime levels in the city, and other personal or health reasons. Circumstances that influenced relocation also included changes in relationships, employment status, financial stability and household structure.

For the Unemployed, housing and cost of living considerations were the most important relocation factors. For Single Parents, the most important factors in the decision to move were wanting a different location in which to raise their family and housing costs. The most important relocation factors for the Disabled were the desire to live outside the city and housing costs. The most important relocation factors for Aged Pensioners were relationship changes (likely the death of a spouse) and wanting to own versus rent.

Predictably, most metro to non-metro movers paid less for their housing after moving. However, one-quarter of all movers actually paid more for housing in non-metro areas. This is consistent with a lesser emphasis on affordability as a relocation driver and greater emphasis on social and personal choice factors influencing people’s decisions to move.

Seventy-eight percent of NSW movers indicated they were better off with regard to housing cost after moving out of Sydney compared to 66% of SA movers who believed they were better off after moving out of Adelaide. Beyond cost factors, most respondents also believed they were better off with regard to housing quality and size after moving.

24

The significance of housing affordability in location choice is now analysed in detail. Housing cost is then considered vis-à-vis other choice factors, by aggregate totals, for the four income-support groups and then by response patterns for SA and NSW. A final section describes housing arrangements, distinguishing between housing expenditure and non-price aspects of housing, pre- and post-relocation which determine the housing impacts of moving to non-metro areas.

Housing Affordability as a Relocation Factor Figure 9. Housing Costs as a Relocation Factor – Aggregate

05

101520253035404550

very important important somewhatimportant

not important not applicable

Perc

ent

N=1434

Figure 9 presents aggregate data indicating the importance of housing cost as a key relocation factor for all survey respondents. Forty-three percent stated that housing cost was a very important consideration in their decision to move out of Sydney or Adelaide. Combining the ‘very important’ and ‘important’ totals, 62% indicated that housing cost was a major factor in their decision to move. Thirteen percent noted that housing cost was not applicable to them. Respondents in this category could be individuals living with family or friends whereby someone else pays for their housing, living in public housing where market rental prices are not applicable or in housing whereby they have no choice in their move, so price is simply not a factor for them.

Figure 10. Housing Costs as a Relocation Factor by Income-Support Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60



Perc

ent

Unemployed Single Parent Disabled Aged Pensioner

Figure 10 shows that Single Parents had the highest percentage (50%) of those who noted housing cost as a very important factor in their decision to move. This factor was least important (37%) to Aged Pensioners. In total, 70% of Single Parents, compared to just over half (53%) of Aged Pensioners, indicated housing was a major factor in them moving to a non-metro area. “Sydney is a wonderful city but too expensive for pensioners, the cost of housing being the main culprit” (Respondent 108). Just over 20% of Aged Pensioners indicated that housing cost was not applicable to them which could be indicative of them moving in to cost controlled housing (public housing, hostels or retirement villages) or in with family where they are not responsible for covering the cost of their own housing.

25

Figure 11. Housing Costs as a Relocation Factor by State

05

101520253035404550



Perc

ent

NSW SA

Forty-six percent of NSW respondents indicated that housing cost was a very important consideration in their moving out of Sydney compared to 34% of those moving out of Adelaide. Combining ‘very important’ and ‘important’ categories, 65% in NSW and 53% in SA indicated that housing was a major factor in their decision to move out of their respective metropolitan areas. A Pearson Chi-Square test on housing cost crosstabulated with State indicates that the differences between the States were very significant (p<0.001).

Housing Affordability in the Context of Other Relocation Factors Figure 12. Very Important Relocation Factors – Aggregate

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

to rai

se fa

mily

hous

ing co

stcri

me

to liv

e out

of cit

y

to ow

n vs.

rent

cost

of livi

ng

relati

onsh

ip ch

ange

s

distan

ce to

family

and f

riend

s

hous

ing qu

ality

area w

as ho

liday

spot

job op

portu

nities

chan

ge in

job

retire

ment o

pport

unitie

s

distan

ce to

work

Num

ber o

f Res

pons

es

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Per

cent

of Q

uest

ion

Res

pons

es

Note on interpretation: This chart represents data from a question format that allowed respondents to answer the question, leave any question blank or indicate that it did not apply to them. ‘Non-responses’ and the ‘not applicable’ answers were excluded from percentage calculations. The shaded bars represent percentages of those who rated an item. The ‘open’ bars show the number of respondents who rated each item. In general, questions that were rated by the largest number of respondents should be given most weight in interpreting survey results. Example: 302 respondents noted that ‘the location as a place to raise my family’ was a very important factor in their decision to move. This represents 57% of all respondents who rated this factor. Comparatively, 551 people noted that ‘housing cost’ was a very important factor in their decision to move and this represented 53% of those who responded to this factor.

From Figure 12 it is evident that there are many factors that are regarded as ‘very important’ by people who relocate from a metropolitan to non-metropolitan area. The factors most often commented on and noted with the highest percentage of being very important in the decision to move were housing cost (of which 53% indicated this was a very important factor), crime levels (47%), wanting to live outside the city (45%) and cost of living (42%). Alternatively, housing cost was the factor that had the lowest percentage for respondents rating it as ‘not important.’ Whilst raising a family was understandably not a factor for all respondents, of those who responded to

26

this factor, 57% believed it was very important. “I lived in fear where I lived in Adelaide – that fear has been replaced by a feeling of peace. I have prayed for this for a long time” (Respondent 3245).

Beyond the factors that were listed in this set of questions, ‘other’ considerations, written in by the respondents themselves, were also very important. These ‘other’ factors included personal and health reasons, lifestyle choices and wanting access to different amenities and services. Employment related factors (distance to work, retirement opportunities, change in job status and job opportunities) did not rate highly as very important factors for respondents in deciding to move out of Sydney and Adelaide.

The set of 4 graphs in Figure 13, and Figure 14, show that whilst there were strong financial and housing considerations in respondents’ decisions to move there were also lifestyle factors that were important for the different income-support types and for the different State respondents.

Figure 13. Very Important Relocation Factors by Income-Support Type Unemployed

020406080

100120140160180200

hous

ing co

stcri

me

to liv

e out

of cit

y

cost

of liv

ing

hous

ing qu

ality

distan

ce to

family

and f

riend

s

to rai

se fa

mily

to ow

n vs.

rent

relati

onsh

ip ch

ange

s

jobs o

pps

chan

ge in

job

retire

ment

distan

ce to

work

holid

ay sp

ot

Num

ber o

f Res

pons

es

01020304050607080

Per

cent

of Q

uest

ion

Res

pons

es

Single Parents

020406080

100120140160180200

hous

ing co

stcri

me

to liv

e out

of cit

y

cost

of liv

ing

hous

ing qu

ality

distan

ce to

family

and f

riend

s

to rai

se fa

mily

to ow

n vs.

rent

relati

onsh

ip ch

ange

s

jobs o

pps

chan

ge in

job

retire

ment

distan

ce to

work

holid

ay sp

ot

Num

ber o

f Res

pons

es

01020304050607080

Per

cent

of Q

uest

ion

Res

pons

es

27

Disabled

020406080

100120140160180200

hous

ing co

stcri

me

to liv

e out

of cit

y

cost

of liv

ing

hous

ing qu

ality

distan

ce to

family

and f

riend

s

to rai

se fa

mily

to ow

n vs.

rent

relati

onsh

ip ch

ange

s

jobs o

pps

chan

ge in

job

retire

ment

distan

ce to

work

holid

ay sp

ot

Num

ber o

f Res

pons

es

01020304050607080

Per

cent

of Q

uest

ion

Res

pons

es

Aged Pensioners

020406080

100120140160180200

hous

ing co

stcri

me

to liv

e out

of cit

y

cost

of liv

ing

hous

ing qu

ality

distan

ce to

family

and f

riend

s

to rai

se fa

mily

to ow

n vs.

rent

relati

onsh

ip ch

ange

s

jobs o

pps

chan

ge in

job

retire

ment

distan

ce to

work

holid

ay sp

ot

Num

ber o

f Res

pons

es

01020304050607080

Per

cent

of Q

uest

ion

Res

pons

es

Note on interpretation: This chart represents data from a question format that allowed respondents to answer the question, leave any question blank or indicate that it did not apply to them. ‘Non-responses’ and the ‘not applicable’ answers were excluded from percentage calculations. The shaded bars represent percentages of those who rated an item. The ‘open’ bars show the number of respondents who rated each item. In general, questions that were rated by the largest number of respondents should be given most weight in interpreting survey results.

Table 9 summarises the top three very important relocation factors within each of the different income-support categories as depicted in the charts above. For comparison purposes, the percentage within each category is ranked.

28

Table 9. Very Important Considerations for Moving by Income-Support Type

Highest Percentage Second Highest Percentage

Third Highest Percentage

Unemployed housing cost - 48% cost of living - 46% to live outside the city - 44%

Single Parents

place to raise my family - 71%

housing cost - 62% crime levels - 51%

Disabled to live outside the city - 51%

housing cost - 51% crime levels – 50%

Aged Pensioners

relationship change - 55%

want to own versus rent - 52%

housing cost - 49%

The ‘other’ considerations which all income-support recipients noted as the most important factors for moving included personal and health reasons, lifestyle choices and wanting access to different amenities and services.

Beyond the ‘other’ factors, for the Unemployed housing costs and cost of living considerations were the most important relocation factors that had the greatest number of responses and the highest percentages of ‘very important’ responses as noted in Figure 13. These were followed closely by wanting to live outside the city and housing quality factors. Factors that were not important to this group were retirement opportunities and owned or rented a holiday home in the area. Surprisingly, distance to work was also relatively unimportant to this group. Only 15% suggested that this factor was very important in their decision to move. This result was supported by those Unemployed respondents who indicated they would commute into the city for employment purposes. “Lots of people commute 1 or 2 hours each way from this area just to work. Everyone wants to live outside cities but have to work in them” (Respondent 29).

For Single Parents the most important factor in deciding to move (based on the number of responses and percentage of the ‘very important’ responses) was the ‘location as a place to raise a family.’ Other important factors were housing costs, and crime levels. “Living in Sydney was heaps of fun and I loved it but nothing compares to living in a small town when it comes to bringing up children” (Respondent 577). If this income-support group is viewed as ‘work-ready’ it is interesting to note that employment factors were amongst the least important in their decisions to move. Retirement opportunities and owning or renting a holiday home in the area were also not important as relocation factors for this group. A Pearson Chi-Square test on change in marital or relationship status crosstabulated with income-support categories indicates that the finding for the Single Parent category was statistically significant (p<0.02). “The main reason for relocating … was because of a relationship break up - I couldn't afford to live in Sydney and raise my child alone. If I could I would still be there” (Respondent 1097).

The most important relocation factors for the Disabled were the desire to live outside the city and housing costs, both noted by 51% of those who answered those questions. Crime levels and housing quality were also important factors for the Disabled. Understandably, employment related factors such as distance to work, changes in jobs, and job opportunities were not very important relocation factors for this group.

The most important relocation factors for Aged Pensioners were ‘relationship changes’ (likely the death of a spouse) with 55% indicating this was a very important consideration in moving and ‘wanting to own versus rent’ housing noted by 52%. Whilst these factors had the highest percentages, they were mentioned by relatively few respondents. Housing cost and crime levels were also important factors (based on the number of responses and the percentages indicating they were very important). The least important factors for this income-support group, not surprisingly, were employment factors such as job opportunities and distance to work. A Pearson Chi-Square test on housing cost crosstabulated with income-support categories indicated that the finding for Aged Pensioners was statistically significant (p<0.03).

29

Figure 14. Very Important Relocation Factors by State

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

to raisefamily

housingcost

crime to live out ofcity

cost of living to own vs.rent

relationshipchanges

Num

ber o

f Res

pons

es

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Per

cent

of Q

uest

ion

Res

pons

es

NSW SA

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

housingquality

distance tofamily and

friends

holiday spot jobs opps change injob

retirement distance towork

Num

ber o

f Res

pons

es

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Per

cent

of Q

uest

ion

Res

pons

es

NSW SA


Table 10 summarises the top three very important relocation factors by State as depicted in the two charts above. For comparison purposes, the percentage within each category is ranked. Given the smaller number of respondents from SA in the survey process, caution should used when analysing this data. For example, although both States indicated that housing cost was a very important factor in their decision to move the number and percentages of the respondents need to be reviewed. Whilst the percentages are similar between NSW and SA, the number of respondents differ significantly – 441 respondents from NSW but only 110 from SA.

30

Table 10. Very Important Considerations for Moving by State

Highest Percentage Second Highest Percentage

Third Highest Percentage

NSW place to raise my family - 60%

housing cost - 57% crime levels - 48%

SA place to raise my family - 50%

want to own versus rent - 47%

relationship change - 46%

When comparing the two States, the top and bottom factors that respondents considered to be very important in their decision to move are very similar. A major factor cited when considering to move, in both States, was ‘the location as a place to raise my family’ followed by housing cost for NSW and wanting to own versus rent housing for SA respondents. “I’d like to make this heard: rent prices are soaring sky high in Sydney and the rental properties are deteriorating in quality for money. It's a joke!!” (Respondent 1049). The ‘other’ category for both States actually had the highest very important percentages. This included personal and health reasons, lifestyle choices and wanting access to different amenities and services. The least important factors for both States were owning or renting a holiday home in the area previously, distance to work and retirement opportunities. Although the employment related factors (job opportunities, change in employment status and distance to work) were rated low overall as decision factors they were seen to be slightly more important to SA movers than to NSW respondents. The relationships between State and the following factors are statistically significant as per Chi-Square testing State and: job opportunities (.042); housing quality (.016); housing costs (.020); and cost of living (.049).

Housing Arrangements Before and After Relocation This section describes housing arrangements, distinguishing between housing expenditure, and non-price aspects of housing, by income-support type and State. This section helps explain the extent to which moving produced greater housing affordability. Following an explanation of the cost issue, changes to the non-price aspects of housing – quality, size, dwelling type and tenure are identified pre- and post-relocation.

Housing costs Quite a few movers actually paid more for housing in the non-metro areas as compared to when they lived in Sydney or Adelaide. This is consistent with a lesser emphasis on affordability as a relocation driver and greater emphasis on social and personal choice factors influencing people’s decisions to move. Figure 15. Amount Spent on Housing After Moving – Aggregate

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

a lot more more about thesame

less a lot less

Perc

ent

N=1420

Figure 15 shows how much respondents spent on housing in non-metro areas as compared to when they last lived in Sydney or Adelaide. Nine percent paid a lot more, whilst another 13% paid more. When totalled, almost one-quarter of all respondents actually paid more for their housing after moving out of the metropolitan areas. Comparatively, nearly half paid less or a lot

31

less after moving out of the metro areas. “If prices of housing keep rising, a lot more will be heading to the country” (Respondent 492).

Figure 16. Amount Spent on Housing After Moving by Income-Support Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

more about the same less

Perc

ent

Unemployed Single Parents Disabled Aged Pensioners

By income-support type, Figure 16 shows the amount spent on housing. Just over one-quarter (27%) of all Single Parents, 23% of the Disabled, 21% of Aged Pensioners and 17% of the Unemployed actually paid more for their housing after their move to non-metro areas. That is, these respondents were essentially worse off with regard to housing cost than when they lived in Sydney or Adelaide. Forty-one percent of the Unemployed, 50% of Single Parents, 52% of the Disabled and 59% of the Aged Pensioners paid more or about the same for their housing after moving.

However, 59% of the Unemployed, 50% of Single Parents, 48% of the Disabled, and 41% of Aged Pensioners spent less on housing after moving, thereby making these respondents better off with regard to housing cost after moving. “Leaving Adelaide was a matter of necessity rather than want … I had no other alternative [but] to look for cheap accommodation in the country” (Respondent 3261). A Pearson Chi-Square test on housing cost crosstabulated with income-support categories indicates that the findings for the Single Parent category was statistically significant at the 0.01 level and the Unemployed category almost significant at the 0.055 level.

Figure 17. Amount Spent on Housing After Moving by State

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

more about the same less

Perc

ent

NSW SA

Thirty percent of all movers in SA paid more for housing after moving than they did when they lived in Adelaide. More than half (59%) paid more or about the same. In contrast, only 19% of NSW movers paid more for their housing after moving out of Sydney. Forty-eight percent of NSW respondents paid more or about the same for housing after the move. Alternatively, 81% of NSW respondents paid less or about the same after the move. “I am now able to have a mortgage and a lifestyle too” (Respondent 185). Just more than one-quarter (27%) of NSW respondents paid a lot less for housing since moving out of Sydney where only 17% of SA respondents paid a lot less after moving out of Adelaide. The relationship between State and the

32

amount paid for housing was statistically very significant with a Pearson Chi-Square significance level of <0.001.

Housing cost satisfaction In aggregate, respondents were quite satisfied with the affordability of housing after moving. Regardless of the amount spent on housing before and after moving noted in Figures 16, 17 and 18, seventy-four percent of all movers believed they were much or somewhat better off with respect to housing affordability since moving out of Sydney and Adelaide. “The thought of ever being able to buy in Sydney is no more than a dream” (Respondent 120). Only 10% perceived they were better off in Sydney and Adelaide

Affordability was a housing satisfaction indicator that respondents strongly suggested had improved since moving out of Sydney and Adelaide. This was especially noted by the Unemployed (77%) and slightly less so by Single Parents (71%). However, another 9% and 12% of the two groups respectively were more satisfied with housing costs in Sydney and Adelaide. These figures, for both groups, were statistically very significant with Pearson Chi-Square significance values of <0.01. “I still have a chance to own a house in the future here” (Respondent 178). Between 8-12% of each income-support type suggested that housing affordability was better in the metropolitan areas they left. Seventy-eight percent of NSW movers indicated they were better off with regard to housing cost after moving out of Sydney compared to 66% of SA movers who believed they were better off after moving out of Adelaide. The relationship between housing affordability and State was statistically very significant at the 0.000 level. Only 8% of NSW and 15% of SA respondents were more satisfied with regard to their housing cost in Sydney and Adelaide, respectively.

Housing tenure Figure 18. Housing Tenure Before and After Moving – Aggregate

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

ow n outright purchasing rentingprivately

renting +Centrelinkassistance

renting fromgovernment

living w ithparents/family

other

Perc

ent

Non-Metro Sydney/Adelaide

Figure 18 shows that after moving nearly 30% of respondents owned their home, up only slightly from when they lived in the metro area. Another 30% rented and received Centrelink rent assistance which was up nearly 10% from before they moved. Renting privately was more common in the cities and down to 13% in non-metro NSW and SA. Given a choice of living in a housing estate or renting privately with the uncertainty of long-term housing in each place, I would choose the latter for my own sanity and self-esteem” (Respondent 972). Interestingly, respondents added a substantial ‘other’ category of living/boarding with parents or other family members. The general ‘other’ category included boarding, lodging and all other comments given which described household makeup. Figures 20 and 21 indicate housing tenure by income-support category.

33

Figure 19. Housing Tenure Before and After Moving – Unemployed and Single Parents

010203040506070

own outright purchasing rentingprivately



living withparents/family

other

Perc

ent

Unemployed non-metro Unemployed Sydney/AdelaideSingle parents non-metro Single parents Sydney/Adelaide

Figure 20. Housing Tenure Before and After Moving – Disabled and Aged Pensioners

010203040506070

own outright purchasing rentingprivately



living withparents/family

other

Perc

ent

Disabled non-metro Disabled Sydney/AdelaideAged Pensioner non-metro Aged Pensioner Sydney/Adelaide

As a result of moving, housing tenure differed significantly amongst the income-support categories. Of note, 61% of all Aged Pensioners owned their home outright when living in Sydney and Adelaide which dropped slightly after moving areas to 56% although ‘purchasing’ was up slightly. Twelve percent more Disabled respondents owned their homes after moving than previously did. This was however still less than one-third. “For the first time in my life, I have my own house, rented all my life” (Respondent 487). Nineteen percent of the Unemployed left the private rental market after leaving Sydney and Adelaide as did 10% of all Single Parents. All income-support categories increased in their percentages of renting and receiving Centrelink rent assistance with Single Parents at the highest percent (47%) and the greatest change of 16%. Across the types, there was a relatively low percentage of recipients renting housing from government before or after moving.

Figure 21. Housing Tenure Before and After the Move by State

05

101520253035

ow n outright purchasing rentingprivately



living w ithparents/family

other

Perc

ent

NSW non-metro Sydney SA non-metro Adelaide

34

The housing tenure situation differed between the States as shown in Figure 21. One-third of all NSW respondents owned their housing outright after moving as compared to only one-fifth of SA respondents, both up slightly from their previous metropolitan locations. “Owning your own home on a decent sized block free and clear is a great incentive to move” (Respondent 1060). After moving out of Sydney, 10% fewer (down to 11%) NSW respondents were housed in the private rental market. Comparatively, of those who moved out of Adelaide, only 2% fewer were housed in the private rental market, but this was still higher (at 16%) than the non-metro NSW rate (11%). There was an 11% increase in the numbers of NSW respondents who were renting and receiving Centrelink assistance after moving out of Sydney. There was no change in the same category for SA movers. Finally, less than 10% of respondents in either SA or NSW, before or after the move, were renting from government.

Dwelling type Two-thirds (66%) of all survey respondents lived in a (detached) house before and after moving out of Sydney or Adelaide. Approximately one-fifth (21%) lived in a flat in these metro areas, which fell to 13% after moving. As a result, after moving to a non-metro area, small percentage increases were seen in all other dwelling types, namely townhouses/semi-detached dwellings, caravan parks, retirement villages in non-metropolitan areas. There were no significant differences between the States.

Variations were however noted by the different income-support types. Single Parents and the Unemployed essentially moved out of flats in Sydney and Adelaide into houses in non-metro areas – 75% of Single Parents and 71% of Unemployed lived in houses after their moves. Aged Pensioners were the only group less likely to live in houses after moving although more than half (54%) still lived in these dwelling types. Seniors moved out of houses and flats and moved into townhouses/semi-detached dwellings and retirement villages. There were no significant changes in the dwelling types of Disabled respondents.

Housing quality and size Figure 22. Housing Quality and Size Satisfaction – Aggregate

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

much betternon-metro

somewhatbetter non-

metro

equal in bothlocations

somewhatbetter Sydney

/ Adelaide

much betterSydney /Adelaide

Perc

ent

Quality of housing Size of housing

In aggregate, 68% of all movers felt they were better off with regard to their housing quality after moving out of Sydney and Adelaide. In contrast, only 13% believed their housing quality was better in the metro areas. The change in housing size was slightly less positive with 60% believing they were better off after moving and 20% feeling they were better off in Sydney or Adelaide.

35

Figure 23. Housing Quality and Size Satisfaction by Income-Support Type Housing Quality Housing Size

01020304050607080

Une

mpl

oyed

Sin

gle

Par

ents

Dis

able

d

Age

dP

ensi

oner

s

Perc

ent

better after the moveequal in both locationsbetter before the move

01020304050607080

Une

mpl

oyed

Sin

gle

Par

ents

Dis

able

d

Age

dP

ensi

oner

s

Perc

ent


Whilst in all income-support groups the majority clearly indicated they were better off after moving out of Sydney and Adelaide with regard to quality of their housing, this was marginally more the case for Single Parents. “Being on the pension you can rent a nice house up here and in Sydney you could only rent a poor quality house or flat” (Respondent 131). Still, approximately one-third of the Unemployed and Aged Pensioners believed housing quality was about the same or better in the metro areas. That is, these individuals perceived they were no better off after moving with regard to housing quality.

The majority in all income-support types again, indicated that they were better off after moving out of Sydney and Adelaide with regard to the size of their housing. Sixty-three percent of both Single Parents and the Unemployed compared to just over half (53%) of Aged Pensioners felt the size of their new housing was better in the non-metro areas. A Pearson Chi-Square test was run, crosstabulating housing size with income-support type and indicated that this finding for the Aged Pensioner category was statistically significant at the 0.000 level. Forty-seven percent of Aged Pensioners, 40% of the Disabled, 37% of the Unemployed and 36% of Single Parents believed their housing size was about the same or better before moving out of the metro areas.

Figure 24. Housing Quality and Size Satisfaction by State

01020304050607080

better after the move equal in both locations better before the move

Perc

ent

Quality NSW Quality SA Size NSW Size SA

Figure 24 indicates that housing quality and size were seen to be much better in the non-metro areas by the majority of NSW and SA respondents. Housing quality and size were noted to be slightly better in Adelaide versus Sydney. There was a marginal difference between the two States with regard to quality and size of housing in non-metro areas of NSW and SA. The relationship between housing size and State was almost statistically significant (p<0.055).

36

Welfare Outcomes of Relocation Key question: Is there a net loss in a mover’s aggregate welfare after they relocate? Summary:

The notion of welfare is a multidimensional concept that incorporates all factors that influence an individual’s sense of well-being. It includes economic capacity (income and assets), health, social opportunities, environmental context and so forth. It is a nebulous notion and difficult to measure. The notion of ‘better off’ was not defined for respondents so they implicitly answered the question in terms of how they regarded the notion. Nevertheless, individuals are generally able to assess their levels of satisfaction with different aspects of their life circumstances.

An overwhelming 72% of all movers believed they were better off in their non-metropolitan communities than they were in Sydney/Adelaide. Just 12% felt they were better off before moving. Eighty-two percent of Single Parents believed they were better off since moving, the most positive of all income-support groups, although all groups overwhelmingly indicated they were better off. More Unemployed believed they were better off in the metro areas than any other income-support group. Overall, NSW respondents, slightly more than SA respondents, indicated they were ‘much better off’ after the move.

When asked what their likelihood was of moving within the next 12 months back to Sydney or Adelaide, two-thirds stated that it was very unlikely. Only 7% suggested it was very likely. The Unemployed were the most likely to move back and Aged Pensioners least likely. A higher percentage of SA movers believed they would move back to Adelaide than NSW recipients believed they would move to Sydney. Of those respondents who said it was very likely that they would move back to Sydney or Adelaide they would not be doing so because they did not rate their new, non-metro community positively. From the data, it is likely that employment opportunities or personal circumstance would force them to move back.

Overall, non-metro communities were rated very positively. An overwhelming 85% rated their new community positively, compared to half who rated Sydney and Adelaide positively. Non-metro areas were not rated negatively at all, with just 4% suggesting their non-metro community was a poor place to live. In contrast, one-quarter of all respondents rated the metro areas as poor places to live.

The Unemployed rated their new community less favourably relative to the other income-support recipients whilst Aged Pensioners rated their new community most positively. The Unemployed had the most positive ratings for Sydney and Adelaide. When comparing non-metropolitan areas with Sydney and Adelaide, the new location rated at least 30% higher by each income-support type.

Interestingly, although the new communities were rated very positively and most movers indicated they were unlikely to move back to Sydney or Adelaide, comparing place satisfaction amenities and services between metro and non-metro areas, all but two factors – community spirit and aged services – were seen to be better in the metro areas. Community spirit was mentioned to be better in non-metro areas by 71% of all respondents. Indicators rated poorest in non-metro communities were transportation, shopping facilities, and restaurants/clubs. NSW non-metro amenities were seen to be slightly better, across the board, than those in non-metro SA.

All but one lifestyle adjustment were rated very satisfactorily by the movers. The most satisfying adjustment was ‘living a different lifestyle’ – the least satisfying was finding work which was noted by two-thirds of all respondents to be easier in the cities as opposed to the country.

This study’s approach to overall welfare eschewed complex measurements in favour of a method driven by people’s perceptions. First, people were asked directly to assess the degree to which they felt that they were better off as a result of moving. Housing considerations would no doubt have been in respondents’ minds when they answered these questions. Second, sets of questions were devised to assess relative satisfaction with aspects of community, place, and lifestyle adjustments and all which constituted important dimensions of personal welfare. Overall welfare results are presented in detail below, followed by community ratings, and aspects of place and lifestyle satisfaction.

37

Aggregate Welfare Before and After Relocation –Perceptions of Being Better Off Figure 25. Perceptions of Being Better off After Moving – Aggregate

05

1015202530354045

much better offin non-metro

somewhatbetter off innon-metro

about thesame

slightly betteroff in Sydney /

Adelaide

much better offin Sydney /Adelaide

Perc

ent

N=1447

Figure 25 shows that 72% of all movers believed they were better off in their new community than they were in Sydney or Adelaide. “In the city, you’re a number, in the country you’re a name” (Respondent 906). Just 12% felt they were better off before moving.

Figure 26. Perceptions of Being Better off After Moving by Income-Support Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

much better off innew community

somewhat betteroff in new

community

about the same slightly better off inSydney / Adelaide

much better off inSydney / Adelaide

Perc

ent


Figure 26 indicates the extent to which the different income-support recipients’ last moves resulted in them being better off. Combining totals indicates that 82% of all Single Parent movers believed they were better off in their new community than they were in Sydney or Adelaide, the most positive of all income-support groups. “In Sydney I was a single supporting parent in full-time work. The cost of living (including rent and childcare) meant I couldn’t get ahead” (Respondent 75). The other support categories also viewed their move positively with 66% of the Unemployed, 69% of Aged Pensioners and 72% of the Disabled believing they were now better off in their new community than they were before moving. Just 9% of Aged Pensioners and Single Parents and 12% of the Disabled felt they were better off in Sydney or Adelaide. However, 17% of the Unemployed believed they were better off in the metro areas. “The only good thing is I have a house but I will not give you a dollar for this town” (Respondent 3194).

38

Figure 27. Perceptions of Being Better off After Moving by State

0

10

20

30

40

50

much better offin non-metro

somewhatbetter off innon-metro

about the same slightly betteroff in Sydney /

Adelaide

much better offin Sydney /Adelaide

Perc

ent

NSW SA

Figure 27 indicates by State the extent to which the respondents’ move to a non-metro area resulted in them being better off. Seventy-three percent of NSW movers believed they were better off in their new community than they were in Sydney. Only 12% believed they were better off before they moved. This figure was slightly lower for SA where 68% of all SA movers believed they were better off in their new community than in Adelaide. Only 13% believed they were better off before.

Aggregate Welfare Before and After Relocation – Intentions to Return to the City Figure 28. Likelihood of Moving Back to Sydney or Adelaide – Aggregate

01020304050607080

very likely somewhatlikely

not sure somewhatunlikely

very unlikely

Perc

ent

N=1459

When asked to assess the likelihood of them moving back to Sydney or Adelaide within the next 12 months, an overwhelming 68% of all respondents stated that it was very unlikely to happen. “I would not have moved from Sydney if I had been able to afford reasonable housing in an acceptable area but now I have moved I am glad I did it - was the best thing I have done in years” (Respondent 952). Only 7% suggested that it was very likely that they would return to Sydney or Adelaide. Disaggregation by income-support type and State in Figures 30 and 31 indicate similar patterns.

39

Figure 29. Likelihood of Moving Back to Sydney or Adelaide by Income-Support Type

0102030405060708090



veryunlikely

Perc

ent


Looking at the likelihood of the income-support recipients moving back to Sydney and Adelaide, an overwhelming 88% of all Aged Pensioners thought that it was unlikely that they would move back in the next 12 months. “We were forced to move because of financial circumstance and cost of living. We are now ‘coasties’ and would not go back to Sydney if we could afford to (which of course we can’t)” (Respondent 183). Sixty-two percent of the Unemployed believed it was unlikely they would move back to Sydney or Adelaide. Three-quarters (77%) of both the Disabled and Single Parent income-support recipients believed it was unlikely they would move back, the latter being statistically significant at the p>0.01 level. The Unemployed (18%) were the most unsure about whether they would move again in the next year to Sydney or Adelaide and were the recipients most likely to move back to these metropolitan areas. Twelve percent of the Disabled, 13% of Single Parents and just 7% of the Aged Pensioners believed they were likely to move back to the city. “It doesn’t matter where you live in South Australia when you’ve got no money” (Respondent 3099).

Figure 30. Likelihood of Moving Back to Sydney or Adelaide by State

01020304050607080



very unlikely

Perc

ent

NSW SA

More than three-quarters (79%) of NSW income-support recipients did not believe they would move back to Sydney in the next year compared to two-thirds (69%) of SA respondents who believed they would not move back to Adelaide. On the other hand, 17% of all SA respondents believed that it was likely they would move back which was up from the 10% of NSW movers who believed they were likely to return to Sydney. “I am already very homesick for Adelaide and would move back now if I had the money” (Respondent 3216). Reviewing the LDS (FaCS, 2001) and survey results, those SA respondents who believed they were at all likely to move back to Adelaide, probably will. NSW respondents were less likely to move back to the city.

A crosstabulation of the likelihood of moving back to Sydney/Adelaide within 12 months and the length of time it had been since a respondent had last lived in Sydney was run to determine any link between the two variables. The figures suggest that the longer an income-support recipient stays in a non-metro community, the less likely they believed they would move back into Sydney or Adelaide. For example, of those who had moved to the non-metro area within the last 6

40

months 17% believed they were likely to move back to the city. Just 6% of those who had moved from Sydney or Adelaide more than one year ago thought they were likely to return.

Of those respondents who said it was very likely that they would move back to Sydney or Adelaide within the next 12 months, 30% rated their new community as a very good place to live. This suggests that they were not moving because they did not rate their non-metro community positively. Likely, employment opportunities or personal circumstance could have them returning to the metro areas. “If possible, I will never go back to a city” (Respondent 151). In support of this, of those who believed they were very likely to move back to Sydney or Adelaide, 41% still felt they were better off after moving out of these metro areas.

The next section indicates respondents’ rating of their new, non-metro community and their previous metropolitan city of Sydney or Adelaide. In this project, it is perceptions of being better or worse off that indicate aggregate welfare, community ratings and place satisfaction indicators help unpack the complex welfare concept. These are detailed below.

Community Ratings Before and After Relocation Overwhelmingly, there were more positive comments on non-metro communities and lifestyle than negative ones. “In short, living in the country is not so much good as bloody fantastic” (Respondent 3339).

Figure 31. Overall Community Ratings – Aggregate

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

very good good neutral poor very poor

Perc

ent

non-metro community Sydney/Adelaide

Figure 31 shows the new, non-metro communities were rated very positively overall. Indeed, eighty-five percent of all respondents rated their new community positively, compared to 49% rating Sydney and Adelaide positively. The new communities were rated as ‘very good’ places to live by 54% compared to 17% who rated Sydney and Adelaide as very good places to live. However, Sydney and Adelaide actually had slightly higher ratings as ‘good’ places to live than did the non-metro areas. The non-metro areas were hardly rated negatively at all, with just 4% suggesting these communities were a poor or very poor place to live. “It is truly delightful here – the neighbours friendly, less noise and the smell of the sea air wonderful” (Respondent 42). In contrast, 26% of all respondents rated the metro areas as poor or very poor areas in which to live.

Crosstabulations show that dwelling type was not an influence on how positively a community was rated by income-support recipients. Housing tenure was less of a factor in community ratings in non-metro areas than in metropolitan cities. That is, people rated non-metro areas more positively than the cities regardless of housing tenure. When a community overall was rated negatively, housing tenure was more of an influence on that than when a community was viewed positively. ‘Outright owners’ versus ‘government renters’ were more positive, and less negative, about the community in which they lived, whether it was a metropolitan or non-metro community.

41

Figure 32. Overall Community Ratings by Income-Support Type Unemployed Disabled

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

verygood

good neutral poor verypoor

Perc

ent

New community Sydney/Adelaide

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

verygood


Perc

ent


Single Parents Aged Pensioners

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

verygood


Perc

ent


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

verygood


Perc

ent


Overall community ratings by income-support types are displayed in Figure 32. The Unemployed rated their new community less favourably relative to the other income-support types with just 46% rating their new community as a very good place to live. “Employment opportunities leave a lot to be desired” (Respondent 635). Sixty-one percent of all Aged Pensioners rated their new community as a very good place to live, higher than the other groups.

Overall, between 78% (Unemployed) and 90% (Aged Pensioner) of respondents rated their new location positively as a place to live. The latter figure was significant at <.015. Eighty-four percent of Single Parents rated their new community positively (significant at <0.04).

The Unemployed were the most positive about Sydney and Adelaide with 47% rating those cities positively as did 41% of the Disabled and 60% of Aged Pensioners. The Aged Pensioner rating of the metro areas was significant (0.024). “Sydney is a fantastic place and I love it more than anywhere! But, it's just not realistic for people on lower/medium income to rent and especially buy there. If I could afford to live in Sydney, I would …” (Respondent 528). In all income-support categories, respondents were more ‘neutral’ about Sydney and Adelaide than they were about their new location as a place to live. However, when comparing the non-metropolitan area and Sydney/Adelaide, the new location rated at least 30% higher by each income-support type.

When reviewing the negative ratings, less than 6% of any income-support group rated their non-metro community poorly as a place to live. With much poorer ratings, between 18% (Aged Pensioners) and 33% (Single Parents) rated Sydney and Adelaide negatively as place to live. “I would never live in Sydney again. It’s becoming a rat race” (Respondent 985).

42

To complete the story of how the survey respondents rated the non-metro and metro areas as places to live, the differentials between the positive and negative are critical. Eighty-eight percent of all Aged Pensioners thought more positively than negatively about their new community as a place to live. Seventy-two percent of Unemployed and 79% of the Disabled and Single Parents thought more positively than negatively about their new community. “Lifestyle of this community suits me. I am disabled – I am happy here and this has helped my medical condition” (Respondent 3320).

Differential numbers for Sydney and Adelaide were much lower, suggesting the respondents’ views were not as extreme – positively or negatively. Forty-two percent of all Aged Pensioners thought more positively than negatively about Sydney/Adelaide as a place to live. Only 18% percent of the Unemployed, 11% of the Disabled and 10% of Single Parents thought more positively than negatively about Sydney and Adelaide. “I can’t wait to move back” (Respondent 890).

Figure 33. Overall Community Ratings by State

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

verygood


Perc

ent

NSW non-metro Sydney

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

verygood


Perc

ent

SA non-metro Adelaide

Totals of 85% and 83% respectively, of NSW and SA movers rated their new communities positively overall. “You feel you’re on holidays everyday of the year” (Respondent 66). Comparatively, 48% of NSW movers rated Sydney and 54% of SA movers rated Adelaide positively as locations in which to live. Sydney was rated negatively by 29% of NSW respondents and Adelaide rated negatively by 19% of SA movers.

Based on a crosstabulation of community rating and the length of time it had been since respondents last lived in Sydney or Adelaide, no ‘honeymoon phase’ was detected by the movers based on how long it had been since they had moved away from the metro area. However, some respondents admitted it was too soon to tell how their net welfare would be affected over a longer period of time. “I had to make for the circumstances I found myself in, and I don't think I’ve lived here long enough to know whether I was right” (Respondent 17).

The next two sections further unpack the concept of welfare. Firstly, they report on the respondents’ views of their new places of residences compared to their previous ones with respect to social and commercial facilities and services and the spirit of the community. Secondly, the level of satisfaction of making various social and work adjustments after relocating are considered. Again, the figures are presented in aggregate, by income-support type and then by State.

43

Place Satisfaction Figure 34. Place Satisfaction After Moving – Aggregate

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

restaurants,clubs

healthservices

recreationfacilities

bankingservices

shoppingfacilities

communityspirit

Num

ber o

f Res

pons

es

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Per

cent

of Q

uest

ion

Res

pons

es

Better in non-metro community Better in Sydney/Adelaide

0100200300400500600700800900

1000

transportation transportationcosts

childcarefacilities

youth services aged services disabilityservices

Num

ber o

f Res

pons

es

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Per

cent

of Q

uest

ion

Res

pons

esBetter in non-metro community Better in Sydney/Adelaide


Figure 34 above shows place satisfaction indicators for non-metro versus metropolitan amenities and services. Clearly, facilities, amenities and services were seen to be much better in the cities when compared to those in the non-metropolitan areas. Transportation services, shopping facilities, health services and restaurants/clubs were noted to be particularly better there.

However, two place satisfaction indicators were seen to be better in the non-metro areas: community spirit and aged services. “Sydney is a souless city, without community” (Respondent 672). An overwhelming 71% percent (of 1326 respondents) suggested community spirit was better in their non-metro location than it was in Sydney or Adelaide. “Living in the country is 110% better than in the city, even with the fewer facilities and services. Community spirit and the lifestyle easily outweigh the opportunities, facilities and services available in Adelaide” (Respondent 3351).

‘Aged services’ was a separate category, apart from health services, and was noted by 33% of respondents to be better in the non-metro location. The top three rated place indicators perceived as being better in metro areas were transportation, shopping facilities, and restaurants and clubs. “If I had a choice, I would live in Sydney as everything is much better there medically,

44

the shopping, and services” (Respondent 783). Fifty percent more respondents suggested transportation was better in Sydney or Adelaide than it was in the non-metro locations. The second biggest differential noted, in favour of the metro areas was noted for transportation costs at 31%. “While I really enjoy living here, I do miss all the shops in Sydney, plus the fact that … I do have to rely on my family to take me around, as I do not drive” (Respondent 751).

Figure 35. Place Satisfaction After Moving by Income-Support Type

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

restaurants,clubs

health services recreationfacilities

bankingservices

shoppingfacilities

communityspirit

Num

ber o

f Res

pons

es

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Per

cent

of Q

uest

ion

Res

pons

es

Unemployed Single parents Disabled Aged pensioners

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

transportation transportationcosts

childcarefacilities

youth services aged services disabilityservices

Num

ber o

f Res

pons

es

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Per

cent

of Q

uest

ion

Res

pons

es

Unemployed Single parents Disabled Aged pensionersN

ote on interpretation: This chart represents data from a question format that allowed respondents to answer the question, leave any question blank or indicate that it did not apply to them. ‘Non-responses’ and the ‘not applicable’ answers were excluded from percentage calculations. The shaded bars represent percentages of those who rated an item. The ‘open’ bars show the number of respondents who rated each item. In general, questions that were rated by the largest number of respondents should be given most weight in interpreting survey results.

Figure 35 indicates how the different income-support groups viewed community amenities and services in the non-metro versus metro areas. It will be remembered that in total, only community spirit and aged services were seen to be better in the non-metro areas. Community spirit was rated very high by all income-support categories (with high percentages and number of respondents), especially by the Unemployed and Disabled – slightly lower by Aged Pensioners. “Community spirit in rural areas is a highly tangible phenomena” (Respondent 3313). Aged Pensioners compared to the other income-support groups led the positive ratings in six of the 12 factors – that is, across the board they rated the non-metro services and facilities more positively than the other groups, although still, only community spirit and aged services

45

were seen as better compared to Sydney and Adelaide. Table 11 presents the services that were rated the lowest in non-metro areas.

Table 11. Lowest Rated Amenity/Service in Non-Metro Area by Income-Support Type

Lowest Rated Service/Amenity

Second Highest Rated Service/Amenity

Third Highest Rated Service/Amenity

Unemployed transportation shopping facilities and banking services

restaurants/clubs

Single Parents transportation shopping facilities restaurants/clubs

Disabled transportation shopping facilities restaurants/clubs and transportation costs

Aged Pensioners

transportation transportation costs shopping facilities

Transportation services, shopping facilities, restaurants/clubs and transportation costs were the most poorly rated facilities and services in the new communities. Just 11% of the Unemployed indicated that transportation was better in the non-metro area. Statistically, this was significant (0.016). Shopping facilities were also rated very poorly in the non-metro areas by the Unemployed, with just 17% suggesting they were better there than in Sydney or Adelaide. This is strongly significant (0.013). Finally, the rating of health services by the Unemployed was also statistically significant. One-quarter suggested they were better in non-metro areas, p<0.018).

Single Parents were overall more positive about the amenities and services in the non-metro areas compared to the Unemployed who rated the amenities most poorly. The statistically significant points were: 34% of Single Parents believed that aged services were better in the non-metro area and 74% thought these services were better than or equal to those in Sydney or Adelaide (0.039). Thirty-two percent believed that recreation facilities were better in the non-metro area and 60% thought these facilities were better than or equal to those in Sydney or Adelaide (0.001). Finally, 20% of Single Parents believed banking and commercial facilities were better and 70% better than or equal to those in the metro areas (0.010).

Thirty-six percent of Disabled recipients believed that recreation facilities were better in the non-metro area and 61% said they were better than or equal to those in Sydney or Adelaide. This was significant (0.055). Their response to health services was also very significant (.003) whereby just 20% thought these services were better in the non-metro.

Similar to the Disabled, the Aged Pensioners’ answers regarding recreation facilities and health services were statistically significant. Thirty-seven percent of Aged Pensioners believed recreation facilities were better in the non-metro areas – just 24% thought they were better in the city. This was very significant (.009). The Aged Pensioners’ response to health services was also significant (0.023) whereby just 21% thought these services were better in the non-metropolitan area – 41% thought they were better in Sydney or Adelaide.

46

Figure 36. Place Satisfaction After Moving by State

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

restau

rants,

club

s

healt

h serv

ices

recrea

tion f

aciliti

es

bank

ing se

rvice

s

shop

ping f

aciliti

es

commun

ity sp

irit

trans

porta

tion

trans

porta

tion c

osts

child

care

facilit

ies

youth

servi

ces

aged

servi

ces

disab

ility s

ervice

s

Num

ber o

f Res

pons

es

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Per

cent

of Q

uest

ion

Res

pons

es

Better in non-metro NSW Better in non-metro SAN

ote on interpretation: This chart represents data from a question format that allowed respondents to answer the question, leave any question blank or indicate that it did not apply to them. ‘Non-responses’ and the ‘not applicable’ answers were excluded from percentage calculations. The shaded bars represent percentages of those who rated an item. The ‘open’ bars show the number of respondents who rated each item. In general, questions that were rated by the largest number of respondents should be given most weight in interpreting survey results.

Figure 36 compares NSW and SA respondents’ levels of satisfaction regarding community amenities and services. It reveals that the two States were very similar with respect to movers’ perceptions of the metro versus non-metro community services, based on the percentage of respondents in each State. NSW recipients rated their access to amenities and services just slightly better since moving than did their SA counterparts in all but two categories – ‘health services’ and ‘aged services.’ That is, NSW amenities in the non-metro areas were seen to be slightly better, across the board, than those in SA non-metro areas. “When I lived in Adelaide I had a full life because I used public transport to which I went out to Adelaide, and beaches and shopping – now I am limited because I don’t drive and there’s not much transport” (Respondent 3008). Whilst the percentages are similar between NSW and SA for most amenities and services, the number of respondents differ significantly – for example, for the aged services question, the NSW percentage who thought this service was better in the non-metro areas was 25% and 28% for SA, however the number of respondents who answered this question differed – 234 from NSW and just 56 from SA. The relationships between State and the following factors were significant: State and health services (0.001), recreation facilities (0.000), banking and commercial services (0.000), and community spirit (0.027).

47

Lifestyle Adjustment Satisfaction Figure 37. Lifestyle Adjustment Satisfaction – Aggregate

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

making friends maintainingfamily ties

living adifferentlifestyle

gettinginvolved incommunity

finding work accessingcommunity

services

Num

ber o

f Res

pons

es

0102030405060708090100

Per

cent

of Q

uest

ion

Res

pons

es

Satisfactory Unsatisfactory


Clearly, Figure 37 indicates the lifestyle adjustment movers were most satisfied with was ‘living a different lifestyle’ with 92% of all recipients stating so. In fact, all but one other personal adjustment were rated very satisfactorily. This was also the adjustment that was most often commented on, by 1249 respondents. The process of finding work was noted by 68% to be easier in the metropolitan areas as opposed to the non-metro areas. This question had the fewest number of responses.

Figure 38. Lifestyle Adjustment Satisfaction by Income-Support Type

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

makingfriends

maintainingfamily ties



findingwork

accessingcommunity

services

Num

ber o

f Res

pons

es

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cent

of Q

uest

ion

Res

pons

es

Unemployed Single parents Disabled Aged pensioners


48

When the income-support recipients’ lifestyle adjustments were compared with each other, Aged Pensioners and Single Parent households were the most consistent and positive in their adjustment to non-metro areas. Ninety-four percent of Single Parents were satisfied with adjusting to a different lifestyle in their new community. This was significant (p<0.015). “Life is good, quiet, peaceful, good people, heaven on earth” (Respondent 242). All groups found the experience of living a different lifestyle to be most satisfactory, as measured by relative percentages and by the high number of responses to this question by all income-support types. Maintaining family ties and making new friends were also adjustments respondents found to be quite satisfactory. The least satisfactory adjustment for all groups concerned the ability to find paid work. “Sydney is too fast and unfriendly – I love the beach and the bush, just would like a few more shops and jobs” (Respondent 1018). Seventy-six percent of the Unemployed, 70% of the Disabled, and 66% of Single Parents found this to be an unsatisfactory experience. The Unemployed group’s significance level was p<0.001.

Figure 39. Lifestyle Adjustment Satisfaction by State

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

making friends maintainingfamily ties



finding work accessingcommunity

services

Num

ber o

f Res

pons

es

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cent

of Q

uest

ion

Res

pons

es

NSW Satisfactory NSW Unsatisfactory SA Satisfactory SA Unsatisfactory


Over 90% of respondents in both States found adjusting to a different lifestyle (to the one they had in Sydney and Adelaide) quite satisfactory. As with the rating of new community amenities and services mentioned earlier, NSW recipients were just slightly more satisfied with making lifestyle adjustments than were their SA counterparts in all categories but ‘making friends’ and ‘finding work.’ For all factors but finding paid work, more than 75% of both States’ income-support recipients were satisfied with adjustments they have had to make while settling into the non-metropolitan areas. “Totally different lifestyle [here] – feel very much retired” (Respondent 311). This complements earlier answers in the questionnaire wherein 32% of all respondents suggested that a consideration in them moving was that they wanted to live outside the city. “It’s a fruitloop free zone. God’s country” (Respondent 1012). Only 27% of NSW respondents suggested that finding paid employment had been a satisfactory experience. In contrast, 44% of SA movers suggested that finding paid work was a satisfactory adjustment. Whilst the percentages are similar between NSW and SA in Figure 39, the number of respondents differ significantly – for example, for the maintaining family ties adjustment responses, 85% of NSW movers and 84% of SA movers thought this this adjustment was satisfactory, however the number of respondents who gave this answer differed significantly – 854 from NSW and 286 from SA.

49

Work Outcomes of Relocation Key question: Does a shift to non-metropolitan areas impact on the capacity of ‘work-ready’ income-support types to obtain paid employment? Summary:

The work-ready population in this study includes all Unemployed income-support recipients, and some Single Parents and Disabled income-support recipients. Insights into this key question have been gleaned from charts and figures in previous sections of the report.

The answer to whether or not the move to non-metropolitan areas impacts on the capacity of ‘work-ready’ recipients to obtain employment is fairly clear. In most instances it would appear that it does as the Unemployed, more so than other income-support types, indicated that finding work is not a satisfactory experience in the non-metro areas. The situation, though, is not that simple.

The Unemployed, like all other movers, were influenced in their decisions by a range of factors, in addition to employment issues. Circumstances such as personal or health factors, lifestyle choices, wanting access to different services and amenities, housing costs, the location as a place to raise a family and cost of living were the most important factors that the work-ready population considered in their decisions to move. Employment related factors were not the most important factors they considered.

It seems that although Unemployed respondents, like the other income-support types, rated individual non-metropolitan services and amenities poorly, overall community ratings were high and lifestyle adjustments were seen to be very positive. However, three-quarters of all Unemployed and two-thirds of Single Parents found the quest for paid employment in the non-metro areas unsatisfactory. Still, despite the apparent inability to find employment easily, almost two-thirds of all Unemployed and three-quarters of all Single Parents did not believe they would move back to Sydney or Adelaide within the next 12 months. Work-Ready Respondent Characteristics

• Seventy percent of the Unemployed were from NSW and 30% from SA.

• The Unemployed gender split was 46% female, 53% male. The Single Parent split was 96% female, 4% male.

• Forty-percent of the Unemployed and 20% of Single Parents were under the age of 25.

• Sixty-one percent of the Unemployed and 50% of Single Parents were under 35 years of age.

• Eighty-five percent of all Unemployed were born in Australia. Of those not born in Australia, 78% had lived here for more than 20 years.

• Just over one-quarter of the Unemployed were part of households consisting of a group of unrelated adults. After moving to the non-metro regions, substantially fewer lived in this arrangement. There was an increase in the numbers of those moving in with a parent(s).

• Twenty percent of all Unemployed and 18% of Single Parent respondents indicated they currently had some paid employment in their non-metro community. Of these Unemployed 74% worked less than 20 hours/week. Of these Single Parents 61% worked less than 20 hours/week but 23% of them worked more than 30 hours/week.

• Before moving from Sydney or Adelaide, 57% of all Unemployed and 44% of all Single Parents had some employment (full-time, part-time, casual or seasonal).

• The Unemployed and Single Parents tended to move to small and large towns, although nearly one-quarter of the Unemployed moved to either a village or a rural area. Compared to the other income-support groups, the Unemployed had the highest percentages of movers who had lived in their non-metro community previously, at 40% (this was double the Disabled and triple the Aged Pensioners percentages).

50

• The Unemployed was the most transient group, with one-quarter of them having lived less than one year in Sydney or Adelaide before moving. Just over one-third had lived in the Sydney or Adelaide metro area for more than 10 years (although there could have been moves within the boundaries of those cities).

• Housing tenure changed for the Unemployed, post-relocation. In the non-metro areas, substantially more rented and received Centrelink assistance and owned their housing outright. Substantially fewer were in the private rental market.

Relocation Factors Fifteen factors were listed on the questionnaire whereby respondents were asked to comment on the importance of each in their decision to move to a non-metropolitan area. Table 12 shows that, for the Unemployed, housing and cost of living considerations were the most important factors for moving out of the metropolitan areas. “Due to unemployment, I had to sell my home in the city as I could no longer afford the payments. I moved home to live with my elderly mother, it was not a matter of choice but a matter of circumstance” (Respondent 3042). Distance to work, job opportunities and changes to their employment situations were not listed as very important factors by the Unemployed. Obviously, it was not these factors that were driving their moves out of the cities. Qualitative data gathered from the survey suggests that many Unemployed may have moved to perimetropolitan areas where they could commute into the city for employment purposes. “I might have to travel to and from Sydney to work, but it’s worth every mile. I’ll do it just to come home” (Respondent 58). If Single Parents are viewed as ‘work-ready’ it is interesting to note that employment factors were amongst the least important factors in their decisions to move.

Table 12 lists in rank order from the highest to lowest, ‘very important’ percentages for the Unemployed and Single Parents. The ‘other’ category had the highest percentage of very important responses for both groups which included personal and health factors, lifestyle choices and wanting access to different services and amenities.

Table 12. Very Important Relocation Factors for the Work-Ready Population

Unemployed Single Parents

housing cost the place as a location to raise a family

cost of living housing cost

wanting to live out of the city crime levels

the place as a location to raise a family cost of living

crime levels housing quality

wanting to own versus rent housing wanting to live out of the city

job opportunities wanting to own versus rent housing

the distance to family and friends a change in their relationship status

a change in their employment situation the distance to family and friends

a change in their relationship status owned or rented a holiday home in the area

housing quality job opportunities

owned or rented a holiday home in the area a change in their employment situation

retirement opportunities distance to work

the distance to work retirement opportunities

Overall Satisfaction of Non-metro Community Overall, the Unemployed rated their new community least positively as compared to the other income-support recipients. This was still very high though at 78%. However, 47% of the Unemployed also rated Sydney and Adelaide positively.

51

Not unlike the other income-support groups, the Unemployed rated community spirit very positively in their new community. They believed transportation, restaurants and clubs and shopping facilities were the facilities that were least satisfactory in the non-metro areas.

Satisfaction With Finding Work All groups, including the Unemployed found adjusting to a different lifestyle and maintaining family ties to be quite satisfactory after moving. The least satisfactory adjustment for all groups was the ability to find paid work - the Unemployed was the least satisfied income-support group. Seventy-six percent of them and 66% of Single Parents found employment opportunities to be unsatisfactory in the non-metro communities. Just over one-quarter (27%) of NSW movers indicated that finding paid work in the non-metro area was satisfactory compared to 44% of SA movers, who were much more satisfied with that aspect of moving. “I would like to have made the move a long time ago, but unfortunately the work situation stopped me leaving Sydney” (Respondent 68).

Figure 40. Satisfaction with Housing Location in Relation to Work by Income-Support Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Unemployed Single Parents Disabled Aged Pensioners

Perc

ent


Figure 40 charts perceptions of housing location in relation to employment opportunities. Not surprisingly, more than 40% of all respondents in each income-support category believed that the location of their housing in relation to work opportunities was better in Sydney and Adelaide. “If I didn’t have a child, I would be in Sydney pursuing a career. There are no great career prospects for young people in country towns…” (Respondent 981). Amongst the groups, the Unemployed had the lowest percentage (42%) who believed housing was in a better location for work in the metro areas as compared to the non-metro areas. It also had the highest percentage (29%) of respondents suggesting that the situation was better after moving into the non-metro areas. As such, of all the groups, the Unemployed were the most satisfied with their housing location in relation to work, followed by Single Parents. The Disabled were least satisfied with their non-metropolitan housing in relation to work. The Chi-square significance levels of the Unemployed (0.025), Single Parents (0.01) and the Disabled (0.013) were all noteworthy.

52

Figure 41. Satisfaction with Housing Location in Relation to Work by State

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

better in non-metroarea

equal in bothlocations

better in Sydney /Adelaide

Perc

ent

NSW SA

Figure 41 clearly indicates that SA respondents were much more satisfied with their housing location in relation to work in the non-metro areas as compared to their NSW counterparts. Interestingly, the location of housing in relation to work in Adelaide was seen as being no better than housing location in non-metro SA. That is, SA movers were no better or worse off after moving. The situation was seen to be quite different for NSW though, where half suggested they were more satisfied with their housing location in relation to work whilst living in Sydney compared to just one-quarter who were satisfied with this factor in non-metro NSW. A Pearson Chi-Square test on housing location in relation to work crosstabulated with State indicated that the differences between the States were very significant (p<0.001).

Likelihood of the Unemployed Returning to the City Just over half (53%) of the Unemployed believed that it was ‘very unlikely’ they would move back to Sydney or Adelaide. Combined with the ‘somewhat unlikely’ variable, 63% of the Unemployed did not believe it was likely they would move back. “Living in such a beautiful seaside town is a pleasure … although it is harder to find employment here” (Respondent 568). The Unemployed (18%) were also the most unsure about whether they would move again. Compared to the other income-support groups, the Unemployed were the most likely group to move back to metropolitan areas. In contrast, 77% of Single Parents thought it was unlikely they would move back to Sydney or Adelaide.

53

5 POLICY IMPLICATIONS We know which and how many income-support recipients are moving within each State and Territory in Australia. This research helps us to better understand why they are moving – specifically, which factors most influence their decisions to move from metro to non-metro areas. This is inferred from administrative data sets such as FaCS’ LDS, Census data and the primary survey research undertaken.

Policy-makers must decide if there is a public interest issue that needs attention with regard to metropolitan housing affordability, the overall welfare of low-income movers as a result of metro to non-metropolitan migration and the capacity of a work-ready population to find paid employment in non-metro areas.

The possible policy implications of knowing more about the factors influencing low-income out-migration from the cities and the overall effects were put forward at the start of this research. The results of the study show that there is some truth in each conjecture.

1. If there are significant numbers of people whose net welfare is being reduced due to relocation then there is some support for higher levels of housing assistance to enable people to avoid the need to relocate. This may ultimately mean higher welfare support costs for government or program and policy changes.

Comment: Low-income earners are, to a degree, being forced to relocate out of the cities with housing affordability acting as a driving force. However, there are many other factors that people consider when moving. Moreover, many people actually want to move for lifestyle reasons and personal circumstances. Cheaper and better housing in non-metro areas facilitate their moves. An overwhelming majority believe they are better off since their move to the non-metropolitan area.

2. If welfare loss is due to unemployment or under-employment, or to poor access to human services after relocation, then there is support for higher levels of government effort to redress those imbalances or strongly encourage relocation back to metropolitan areas where support can be shown more efficiently.

Comment: Low-income earners acknowledge reduced access to services and facilities and wish they were improved in non-metro areas although they still perceive themselves to be better off after moving. It is often the intangible ‘sense of place,’ community spirit, social attitudes, the physical environment and the general livability of non-metro communities that entice and keep individuals in these areas. Many would not move back to metropolitan areas even if they could afford to – that is, they now choose to stay where they are. However, many of the Unemployed sensed they would have to move back to the metro areas for employment purposes. Increased support for this income-support group could be directed in the metropolitan areas, before they feel they have to move out in the first instance. Alternatively, labour market assistance could be placed in the non-metropolitan areas for job seekers

3. Perversely, income-support payments may enable people to relocate to places where the probability of obtaining employment is actually lower, although there are many other factors that are considered in relocation choices including penalties that may occur for income-support recipients moving to an area with reduced employment prospects.

Comment: Whilst this implication is true in that income-support payments do enable recipients to move to non-metro areas, these benefits are contributing to the overall welfare of these individuals, many of whom are on a benefit other than an Unemployment payment. The fact remains that low-income earners are, to a degree, being forced to relocate partly because of housing - this includes some Unemployed who are forced to move to areas with fewer employment prospects, but it also includes Aged Pensioners, the Disabled and Single Parents who may not be looking for work. The Unemployed respondents in this research are the income-support types most likely to relocate back to the city, presumably for employment purposes. Government employment support could be addressed in non-metro areas to facilitate this group from having to move back to the city for work.

54

4. From the results of the research, a fourth issue arises. Although housing is, to some degree (more so in NSW than SA), forcing low-income earners out of the metropolitan areas, their overall welfare is not seen to be reduced, especially for Single Parents, Aged Pension, and Disabled recipients. Unemployed individuals’ perceptions of their overall welfare are slightly less positive. If overall welfare is not reduced, are the known housing issues, mostly price, in the metro areas a problem for government and other agencies to address?

Comment: If government decides housing is an issue that requires further policy intervention, the results of this study suggest there is a need for housing support in metropolitan areas, especially for the Unemployed. Alternatively, additional services, infrastructure and employment opportunities could be encouraged in non-metropolitan areas. A reconsideration of its policies (e.g., penalties for moving to certain areas) would also be prudent, as one respondent to the survey suggested. “The government wants people to move to the country but I was penalised for doing so – they cannot have it both ways” (Respondent 87).

To particularise another situation, two stories about change in non-metropolitan areas are instructive. Some of the worst social problems in NSW are emerging in the coastal areas substantially as a result of in-migration of income-support recipients (Vinson, 1999). Various social problems result from retirees moving into ‘sea change’ localities. The basis for this is the fact that couples are separating themselves from family and friends in the city just when they are heading into a stage of the life cycle when they are most likely to need support from friends and relatives. The problems do not emerge at first but tend to come when couples hit their 70s and ill-health emerges. Often it is the relatively healthy partner having to ferry the sick person to the local doctor or specialists in remote cities.

Further problems arise in the transition to specialised retirement accommodation because it can take some time to sell houses and because such facilities may not be available locally. Local councils typically are left to provide support services with inadequate resources to do so. A second story concerns the implications of gentrification in some non-metropolitan areas. Whilst this term was coined to refer to those who began to repopulate the inner city from the late 1960s, (buying old, cheap terrace housing and doing them up), very similar processes have been operating in some non-metropolitan localities. They have had similar displacement effects in those localities as the gentrifiers of the inner city had on pre-existing lower-income populations.

All of these policy implications assume a certain degree of choice for these movers. Many of the low-income earners believe they were forced out due to a multitude of reasons, a key one being housing, and had no choice but to move to a non-metropolitan area. In all of the literature on migration and poverty, despite the few exceptions noted in this report, there is little discussion on the role and significance of housing affordability, size, quality, location to employment opportunities, tenure options and accessibility. This study goes some way in filling in these gaps. Further research is proposed to study the migration patterns of income-support recipients moving in ‘the other direction,’ that is from non-metro to metropolitan areas. Comparisons as to the significance of housing could then be made relative to the importance of employment, and other factors that influence migration into the cities.

In sum, housing is both a major expenditure for poor households and a crucial determinant of well-being for low-income earners. It greatly influences other life choices.

55

6 CONCLUSION The significance of low-income earners, including income-support recipients, in migration flows from metropolitan to non-metropolitan areas has been widely but relatively recently noted in Australian and international literature. In Australia the phenomenon is bound up in broader debates about the welfare-polarising effects of economic restructuring and immigration. Sydney has been the particular focus of those debates because it is Australia's largest city, its most globalised, its most expensive and the locus of immigration. But outflows of low-income earners from all main cities have been noted albeit with lesser force.

This study has reviewed the mobility patterns of income-support recipients and determined the significance of those flows within the Australian context. Despite the growing focus on this phenomenon in the literature, there are still many untested assumptions that can only be assessed with the kind of survey data that this study has produced. Two key assumptions were tested in the research: that for low-income intrastate, metro to non-metro migrants, housing affordability is a key driver of outflow patterns, and as a result, there is a net loss in their overall welfare.

Rationally, people would not knowingly move to an area where their overall welfare would be reduced. Regardless of the degree to which they felt they were ‘forced’ out of Sydney or Adelaide respondents indicated a marked improvement in lifestyle and overall place satisfaction after moving out of the metro areas. Net welfare gains were noticeably higher for Aged Pensioners and Single Parents who were most satisfied with their moves. Whilst still generally satisfied after moving, the Unemployed were the least satisfied of the income-support recipients. The primary negative factors in non-metro areas were reduced access to commercial services, shopping facilities and to health and transportation services. Specifically for the Unemployed, reduced access to jobs was a marked negative factor and probably unexpected. Even though specific community services and facilities were poorly rated in the non-metro areas, respondents still rated those communities very highly. Most did not see themselves moving back to the city. In aggregate, 84% of all respondents rated their new community as a good or very good place in which to live. Sixty-nine percent believed they were better off after moving and 74% believed it was not at all likely they would move back to Sydney or Adelaide.

Those who were likely to move back to Sydney and Adelaide were not doing so because they rated their new, non-metro community poorly. If an income-support recipient believed they were very likely to move, it did not seem to matter if they believed they were better or worse off – their circumstance demanded it. “The construction of this survey seems to assume a degree of choice in living location – this isn’t always applicable to those living below the poverty line” (Respondent 3362).

Housing affordability was a key driving factor for low-income earners moving out of Sydney and Adelaide, but it is not the only factor. Personal circumstances, a desire to live out of the city, crime levels and wanting a different place in which to raise a family were also major decision factors. Many income-support recipients actually wanted to move out of the metropolitan areas. They were able to make those moves and achieve their desired lifestyle goals as a result of housing being more affordable, appropriate and available in the non-metro areas.

By way of final conclusion, housing is a key ‘push’ factor for low-income earners moving out of metropolitan areas. However, it is not the only factor – there is a range of personal and lifestyle reasons that equally influence people in their decisions to move. They are able to make those moves as a result, in part, of housing being more affordable, appropriate and available in non-metropolitan areas. Housing and other life circumstances can be both ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors on an individual or family and thus are crucial determinants of overall well-being. Regardless of which factors push income-support recipients away from cities or which factors pull them toward non-metro areas, after moving, they overwhelmingly believe their net welfare has been improved.

56

REFERENCES Bell, M. (1992) Internal Migration in Australia, 1981-1986, AGPS, Canberra.

Bell, M. (1995) Internal Migration in Australia, 1986-1991: Overview Report, AGPS, Canberra.

Bell, M. and Cooper, J. (1995) Internal Migration in Australia, 1986-1991: The Overseas-Born, AGPS, Canberra.

Bell, M. and Hugo, G.J. (2000) Internal Migration in Australia 1991-1996: Overview and the Overseas-Born, Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Canberra.

Bell, M. and Maher, C. (1995) Internal Migration in Australia, 1986-1991: The Labour Force, AGPS, Canberra.

Birrell, B. and Rapson V. (2001) The Location and Housing Needs of Lone Parents. AHURI Work-in-Progress paper. Available at: http://www.ahuri.edu.au/pubs/progress/

Burnley, I.H. (1974) International migration and metropolitan growth in Australia. in Burnley, I. (ed.) Urbanisation in Australia: the post-war experience. Cambridge: CUP.

Burnley, I.H. (1988) Population Turnaround and the Peopling of the Countryside? Migration from Sydney to the Country Districts of New South Wales, Australian Geographer, 19, 2, 268-283.

Burnley, I.H. (1996) Migration, Well-Being and Development in Coastal New South Wales, 1976-91, Australian Geographer, 21, 1, 53-76.

Burnley, I. and Murphy, P. (forthcoming) Change, continuity or cycles: the population turnaround in NSW, Journal of the Australian Population Association.

Burnley, I.H., Pryor, R.J. and Rowland, D.T. (1980) Mobility and Community Change in Australia, University of Queensland Press, Brisbane.

Centrelink (2001) A guide to Commonwealth Government payments. Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services and Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Canberra, ACT.

Centrelink (2002) Unpublished data. Canberra, ACT.

Champion, A. (ed.) (1989) Counterurbanisation: the changing pace and nature of population deconcentration. London: Edward Arnold.

Clark, R.L. (1989) Welfare and Outmigration of Solo Mothers, in US Bureau of Census, Proceedings of the Conference on Individuals and Families in Transition, US Bureau of Census, Washington.

Cromartie, J.B. (1993) Leaving the Countryside: Young Adults Follow Complex Migration Patterns, Rural Development Perspectives, 8, p. 22-27.

Cromartie, J. and Nord, M. (1997) Migration Contributes to Nonmetro Per Capita Income Growth, Rural Conditions and Trends, 8, 2, pp. 40-44.

Drysdale, R. (1991) Aged Migration to Coastal and Inland Centres in New South Wales, Australian Geographical Studies, 29, 2, pp. 268-283.

Family and Community Services, Commonwealth Department (2001) Longitudinal Data Set Information. Unpublished data. Canberra, ACT.

Fitchen, J.M. (1995) Spatial Redistribution of Poverty Through Migration of Poor People to Depressed Rural Communities, Rural Sociology, 60, 2, pp. 181-201.

Flood, J. (1992) Internal Migration in Australia: Who Gains, Who Loses, Urban Futures, 5, pp. 44-53.

Frey, W.H. (1994a) Residential Mobility Among the Rural Poor, Rural Sociology, 59, pp. 416-436.

Frey, W.H. (1994b) Immigration and Internal Migration for US States: 1990 Census Findings by Poverty Status and Race, Research Report No. 94-320, Population Studies Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

57

Frey, W.H. (1995a) New Geography of Population Shifts: Trends Toward Balkanization, pp. 271-334 in Farley, R. (ed.), State of the Union - America in the 1990s - Volume 2: Social Trends, New York, Russell Sage.

Frey, W.H. (1995b) Immigration Impacts on Internal Migration of the Poor: 1990 Census Evidence for US States, Internal Journal of Population Geography, 1, pp. 51-56.

Frey, W.H. (1995c) Poverty Migration for US States: Immigration Impacts, 1994 Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, Vancouver, pp. 135-140.

Frey, W.H. (1997) Immigration, Welfare Magnets and the Geography of Child Poverty in the United States, Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 19, 1, pp. 53-86.

Frey, W.H. and Liaw, K. (1998) Immigrant Concentration and Domestic Migrant Dispersal: Is Movement to Non-metropolitan Areas “White Flight”? Professional Geographer, 50, 2, pp. 215-232.

Frey, W.H., Liaw, K. and Lin, G. (1998) State Magnets for Different Elderly Migrant Types, Research Report No. 98-420, Population Studies Center, University of Michigan.

Frey, W.H., Liaw, K-L., Xie, Y. and Carlson, M.J. (1995) Interstate Migration of the US Poverty Population: Immigration ‘Pushes’ and Welfare Magnet ‘Pulls’, Research Report No. 95-331, Population Studies Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Garkovich, L. (1989) Population and Community in Rural America, Greenwood Press, New York.

Hanson, R.L. and Hartman, J.T. (1994) Do Welfare Magnets Attract? Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion Paper No. 1028-94, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin.

Henshall Hansen Associates (1988) Study of Small Towns in Victoria. Melbourne: Government of Victoria.

Hirschl, T.A., Poston, D.L. and Frisbie, W.P. (1990) The Effects of Private and Public Sustenance Organisations on Population Redistribution in New York State, Population and Development Program Working Paper Series 2.12, Cornell University, New York.

Hugo, G.J. (1986) Patterns of Elderly Migration in Australia. Paper presented to 2lst Conference of the Institute of Australian Geographers, Perth, 10-18 May.

Hugo, G.J. (1989a) Australia: The Spatial Concentration of the Turnaround, pp. 62-82 in A.G. Champion (ed.) Counterurbanisation: The Changing Pace and Nature of Population Deconcentration, Edward Arnold, London.

Hugo, G.J. (1989b) Population Transitions in Australia, in R.L. Heathcote and J. Mabbutt (eds.) Land, Water and People: Geographical Essays on Resource Management and the Organisation of Space in Australia, Australian Academy of Social Sciences, Canberra.

Hugo, G.J. (1994) The Turnaround in Australia: Some First Observations from the 1991 Census, Australian Geographer, 25, 1, pp. 1-17.

Hugo, G.J. and Bell, M. (1998) The Hypothesis of Welfare-Led Migration to Rural Areas: The Australian Case, pp. 107-133 in P. Boyle and K. Halfacree (eds.) Migration into Rural Areas - Theories and Issues, John Wiley and Sons, West Sussex.

Jarvie, W.K. (1985) Structural Economic Change, Labour Market Segmentation and Migration, Papers of the Regional Science Association, Eighth Pacific Science Association, Tokyo, 1983, pp. 129-144.

Jarvie, W.K. (1989a) Migration and Regional Development, pp. 218-233 in B. Higgins and I. Zagorski (eds.) Australian Regional Development: Readings in Regional Experiences, Policies and Prospects, AGPS, Canberra.

Jarvie, W.K. (1989b) Changes in Internal Migration in Australia: Population or Employment-Led? pp. 47-60 in L.J. Gibson and R.J. Stimson (eds.) Regional Structure and Change, Experiences and Prospects in Two Mature Economies, Monograph Series No. 8, Regional Science Research Institute, Peace Dale, Rhode Island.

58

Johansen, H.E. and Fuguitt, G.V. (1984) The Changing Rural Village in America - Demographic and Economic Trends Since 1950, Ballinger, Massachusetts.

Lichter, D.T., McLaughlin, D.K. and Cornwell, G.T. (1994) Migration and the Loss of Human Resources in Rural America, in L. Beaulieu and D. Mulkey (eds.) Investing in People: The Human Capital Needs of Rural America, Westview Press, Boulder.

Logan, M.I. et al. (1981) Urbanisation: the Australian Experience. Melbourne: Shillington House.

Morrow, I. (2000) The internal migration of workforce age welfare recipients in Australia. Unpublished Conference Paper: Australian Population Association Population and Globalisation: Australia in the 21st Century. 01 December 2000.

Morrow, I. (2002) Unpublished communication. Canberra, ACT. 06 June 2002.

Morrow, I. (n.d.) The Internal Migration of Disability Support Pensioners: Findings from the FACS Longitudinal Data Set, unpublished paper.

Munro-Clark. M. (1986) Communes in Rural Australia. Sydney: Hale and Iremonger.

Murphy, P.A. (1977) Second homes in New South Wales, Australian Geographer, 13, pp. 310-17.

Murphy, P.A. (1981) Patterns of Coastal Retirement Migration. In A. Howe (ed.) Towards and Older Australia, University of Queensland Press, St. Lucia.

Murphy, P.A. (1992) Leisure and coastal development, Australian Planner, 30, 145-51.

Murphy, P.A. (2002) Sea change: Re-inventing rural and regional Australia. Transformations Journal, No. 3. Available at: http://www.cqu.edu.au/transformations

Murphy, P.A., Burnley, I.H. and Fagan, R.H. (1997) Immigration and the Cities. Sydney: Federation Press.

Murphy, P.A. and Watson, S. (1995) Winners, losers and curate's eggs: regional outcomes of economic restructuring in Australia, 1971-1991, Geoforum, 26, 344-349.

Murphy, P.A. and Zehner, R.B. (1988) Satisfaction and Sunbelt Migration, Australian Geographical Studies, 25, pp. 320-334.

Newton, P.W. and Bell, M. (eds.) (1996) Population shift - Mobility and Change in Australia, AGPS, Canberra.

Neyland, B. and Kendig, H. (1996) Retirement Migration to the Coast, pp. 364-377 in P.W. Newton and M. Bell (eds.) Population Shift - Mobility and Change in Australia, AGPS, Canberra.

Nord, M. (1996) Migration and the Spatial Distribution of Poverty: Country to Country Migration, 1985-90, ERS Staff Paper, No. 9619, Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture.

Nord, M., Luloff, A.E. and Jensen, L. (1995) Migration and the Spatial Concentration of Poverty, Rural Sociology, 60, 3, 399-415.

Plane, D.A. (1999) Geographical Pattern Analysis of Income Migration in the United States, International Journal of Population Geography, 5, pp. 195-212.

Pollard, H. (1996) Seasonal and Permanent Moves Among the Elderly, pp. 378-391 in P.W. Newton and M. Bell (eds.) Population Shift - Mobility and Change in Australia, AGPS, Canberra.

Rives, N., Serow, W., Freeman, G. and McLeod, K. (1983) Migration of the Elderly: Are Conventional Models Applicable? Proceedings of the American Statistical Association (Social Statistics), pp. 343-347.

Rodgers, J.L. and Rodgers, J.R. (1997) The Economic Impact of Rural-to-Urban Migration in the United States: Evidence for Male Labor-Force Participants, Social Science Quarterly, 78, 4, pp. 937-954.

59

Rose, A.J. (1966) Dissent from Down-Under: Metropolitan Primacy as the normal State, Pacific Viewpoint, 7, pp. 1-27.

Rowland, D.T. (1979) Internal Migration in Australia, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Catalogue No. 3409.0, ABS, Canberra.

Salt, B. (1992) Population Movements in Non-Metropolitan Australia, AGPS, Canberra.

Stilwell, F. (1974) Australian Urban and Regional Development. Sydney: ANZ.

Torrecilha, R.S. and Sandefur, G.D. (1990) State Characteristics and the Migration of the Disadvantaged, Center for Demography and Ecology Working Paper No. 90-19, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin.

Vinson, T. (1999) Unequal in Life: the Distribution of Social Disadvantage in Victoria and New South Wales. The Ignatius Centre for Social Policy: Melbourne.

Vipond, J. (1989) Australian experiments with regional policies, in Higgins, B. and Zagorski, K. (eds) Australian Regional Developments. Canberra: AGPS.

Waldegrave, C. and Stuart, S. (1997) Out of the Rat Race: The Migration of Low Income Urban Families to Small Town Wairarapa, New Zealand Geographer, 53, 1, pp. 22-29.

Wenk, D. and Hardesty, C. (1993) The Effects of Rural-to-Urban Migration on the Poverty Status of Youth in the 1980s, Rural Sociology, 58, 1, pp. 76-92.

Wulff, M. and Bell, M. (1997) Internal Migration, Social Welfare and Settlement Patterns: Impacts on Households and Communities, DIMA, Canberra.

Wulff, M. and Newton, P. (1996) Mobility and Social Justice, pp. 426-443 in P.W. Newton and M. Bell (eds.) Population Shift: Mobility and Change in Australia, AGPS, Canberra.

60

BIBLIOGRAPHY Burnley, I.H. (2000), Immigration, diversity and difference in Multicultural Sydney in J. Connell

(ed) Sydney 2000, The Emergence of a World City, Melbourne, Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Burnley, I.H. (1999), ‘Levels of immigrant residential concentration in Sydney, Australia, and their relationship with disadvantage’, Urban Studies, Volume 36, No. 8, 1295-1315.

Burnley, I.H. (1998), Immigrant city, global city? Advantage and disadvantage among communities from Asia in Sydney, Australian Geographer, Volume 29, No 1, 49-70.

Burnley, I.H. (1996), ‘Net migration and relocation of overseas-born populations in metropolitan Sydney’, in P. Newton and M. Bell (eds) Mobility in Australia, CSIRO, Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service, 224-256.

Burnley, I.H. and Murphy, P.A. (1995) Residential location choice in Sydney’s peri-metropolitan region, Urban Geography, Vol. 16, No. 3, 123-42.

Burnley, I.H. and Murphy, P.A. (1994) Immigration, housing costs and population dynamics in Sydney. Canberra, AGPS.

Dockery A.M. (2000) Regional unemployment rate differentials and mobility of the unemployed: An analysis of the FaCS Longitudinal Dataset. Unpublished Workshop Paper: Department of Family and Community Services. 27 March 2000.

Freestone, R. and Murphy, P. (1998) Metropolitan restructuring and suburban employment centers: cross cultural perspectives on the Australian experience, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 64, No. 3, 286-297.

Murphy, P.A. (1995) Immigrant arrivals in Australia: Sydney and the other cities, Urban Futures, No. 18, 42-46.

Murphy, P.A. (1993) Immigration and the management of Australian cities, Urban Studies, Vol. 30, 1501-1519.

Murphy, P.A. and Burnley, I.H. (1993) Socio-demographic structure of Sydney's peri-metropolitan region, Journal of the Australian Population Association, Vol. 10, 127-144.

Murphy, P.A., Burnley, I.H., Harding, H.R., Young, V. and Wiesner, D. (1990) Impact of Immigration on Urban Infrastructure, Canberra, AGPS.

Murphy, P., Burnley, I. and Jenner, A. (1997) A view from the fringe: residential location choice to outer suburban Sydney, Urban Studies, Vol. 34, No.7, 1109-1127.

Murphy, P.A. and Watson, S. (1997) Surface City: Sydney at the Millennium. Sydney: Pluto Press.

Murphy, P.A. and Watson, S. (1994) Social polarisation and Australian cities, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 18, 573-590.

Thompson, S., Dunn, K., Burnley, I., Murphy, P. and Hanna, B. (1998) Multiculturalism and local governance: a national perspective. NSW Department of Local Government, Ethnic Affairs Commission of NSW and UNSW.

61

APPENDIX ONE. SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE

Movement of People from Cities to Smaller Towns and Country areas of Australia, 2001 Survey Prize: When you have completed the questionnaire simply return it in the addressed, prepaid envelope provided. All respondents are eligible to enter a draw to win one of five $100 gift vouchers from the store of their choice. If you want to be in the prize draw, please fill in your name and address below. Names will be removed from the survey so that no one can link you to your survey answers. Your Centerlink payment will NOT be affected if you win the prize. The prizes will be drawn on October 15th, 2001. The winners will be contacted by mail.

Entry form for Prize Draw (OPTIONAL)

Name: ______________________________________________________________

Address: ______________________________________________________________

Postcode: ______________________________________________________________

62

Survey Instructions: Our study is trying to understand why people have moved away from Sydney to smaller towns and rural parts of Australia and what affect that has on them. Many of the questions you will be answering have to do with where you currently live and your situation when you last lived in Sydney.

Sydney has been defined as the area within the boundaries of Penrith, Campbelltown, Sutherland and Hornsby.

Adelaide is seen as being within the boundaries of Gawler, Mount Barker, and Noarlunga.

For most questions, you are asked to circle the number or letter of your response. For example, for the first question, "In which state do you live?" you would circle the letter A.

A. NSW

B. South Australia

For some questions, you are asked to simply write in your answer. For example,

“What is your current postcode?” _______________________

Finally, for other questions, you are asked to consider your answers on a scale. For example, “How important were the following considerations for you in deciding to move out of Sydney?”

very important somewhat not not

important important important applicable

job opportunities 1 2 3 4 9

cost of living 1 2 3 4 9

housing costs 1 2 3 4 9

63

Personal Details: 1. In which state do you currently live?

A. NSW

B. South Australia

2. Are you male or female?

A. Male

B. Female

3a. What is your current postcode? __________________

3b. What is the name of the place where you live? __________________

4. What was your postcode when you last lived in Sydney? __________________

5. Please indicate which type of income support payment you currently receive.

A. not receiving any benefits at this time

B. unemployment (Newstart Allowance)

C. youth allowance

D. disability

E. single parent (Sole Parenting Payment)

F. age pension

G. not sure

6. What is your age? __________________

7. In which country were you born?

A. born in Australia (go to Question 9)

B. born outside of Australia (complete Questions 8a and 8b)

8a. How long have you lived in Australia?

A. less than 5 years

B. 5-9 years

C. 10-19 years

D. 20 or more years

8b. Are you an Australian citizen?

A. yes

B. no

64

9. Which of the following best describes the current makeup of your household?

A. only yourself

B. couple (or partners) with no dependent children at home

C. couple with one or more dependent children at home

D. a parent with one or more dependent children at home

E. group of adults to whom you are not related

F. other (please describe) _____________________________________

Personal Details:

2

65

10. Which of the following best describes the makeup of your household when you last lived in Sydney?

A. only yourself

B. couple (or partners) with no dependent children at home

C. couple with one or more dependent children at home

D. a parent with one or more dependent children at home

E. group of adults to whom you are not related

F. other (please describe) ______________________________________

Employment: 11. Do you currently have any paid employment?

A. yes (go to Question 12)

B. no (go to Question 13)

12. On average, approximately how many hours per week do you work in paid employment?

A. 0-10 hours/week

B. 11-20 hours/week

C. 21-30 hours/week

D. 31-40 hours/week

E. 41+ hours/week

13. The main income earner currently in your household is?

A. you

B. your partner

C. your parent

D. your child

E. other (please describe) ______________________________________

14. The main income earner in your household when you last lived in Sydney was?

A. yourself

B. your partner

C. your parent

D. your child

E. other (please describe) ______________________________________

15. When you last lived in Sydney were you personally....

A. employed full-time

B. employed part-time

66

C. unemployed

D. employed casually

E. employed seasonally


67

Residential Location History:

16. Which of the following best describes the immediate area in which you currently live?

A. village (less than 500 population)

B. small town (less than 10,000 population)

C. large town (more than 10,000 population)

D. regional city

E. rural area


17. Have you lived in this area previously?

A. yes When was that? (From what year to what year) ______________________

B. no

18. Where did you spend most of your childhood up to the age of 16? (choose only one)

A. the area where you live now

B. Sydney (within the boundaries of Penrith, Campbelltown, Sutherland and Hornsby)

C. another Australian city

D. rural district or country town in Australia

E. another country

19. When did you last live in Sydney?

A. less than 6 months ago

B. 6-9 months ago

C. 9-12 months ago

D. more than 1 year ago

20. How long did you live in Sydney, when you last lived there?

A. less than 6 months

B. 6 months - 1 year

C. 1-3 years

D. 3-9 years

E. more than 10 years

68

Social and Economic Change:

How important were the following considerations for you in deciding to move out of Sydney?



21. job opportunities 1 2 3 4 9

22. retirement opportunities 1 2 3 4 9

23. change in marital or relationship status

1 2 3 4 9

24. distance to work 1 2 3 4 9

25. location to raise my family

1 2 3 4 9

26. housing quality 1 2 3 4 9

27. housing costs 1 2 3 4 9

28. wanted to own a house instead of renting

1 2 3 4 9

29. wanted to live outside the city

1 2 3 4 9

30. crime levels 1 2 3 4 9

31. distance to family and friends

1 2 3 4 9

32. change in employment situation

1 2 3 4 9

33. own or rented a holiday home in the area

1 2 3 4 9

34. cost of living 1 2 3 4 9

35. other (specify) _______ 1 2 3 4 9

36. Overall, to what extent were housing costs a key factor in your move out of Sydney?



1 2 3 4 9

Housing Indicators:

37. Which one of the following best describes your present housing situation?

A. own outright

B. purchasing

69

C. renting privately

D. renting and receiving Centrelink rent assistance

E. renting from government


70

38. Which one of the following best describes your housing situation when you last lived in Sydney?

A. own outright

B. purchasing

C. renting privately

D. renting and receiving Centrelink rent assistance

E. renting from government

F. other, eg. sharing a dormitory, private boarding, homeless (please describe)

______________________________________

39. How much do you spend on your housing now as compared to when you last lived in Sydney?

a lot more about the less a lot

more same less

1 2 3 4 5

40. Which one of the following best describes the type of dwelling you presently live in?

A. house

B. flat/home unit

C. boarding house

D. townhouse, villa, semi-detached

E. caravan park

F. retirement village

G. nursing home

H. other (please describe) ______________________________________

41. Which one of the following best describes the type of dwelling you had when you last lived in Sydney?

A. house

B. flat/home unit

C. boarding house

D. townhouse, villa, semi-detached

E. caravan park

F. retirement village

G. nursing home

H. other (please describe) ______________________________________

How would you rate your current housing situation as compared to when you last lived in Sydney?

much somewhat equal in both somewhat much

71

better here better here locations better there better there

42. quality of housing 1 2 3 4 5

43. size of housing 1 2 3 4 5

44. affordability of housing 1 2 3 4 5

45. location of housing in relation to work opportunities

1 2 3 4 5

72

Life Satisfaction:

46. What are the 3 things you like most about living at your current location?

+1. _____________________________

+2. _____________________________

+3. _____________________________

47. What are the 3 things you like least about living at your current location?

-1. _____________________________

-2. _____________________________

-3. _____________________________

48. Overall, how do you rate this community as a place to live?


1 2 3 4 5

How would you rate the following community amenities and services where you live now as compared to where you last lived in Sydney?

much somewhat equal in both somewhat much not

better here better here locations better there better there applicable

49. restaurants and clubs 1 2 3 4 5 9

50. health services 1 2 3 4 5 9

51. recreation facilities 1 2 3 4 5 9

52. banking/ commercial services

1 2 3 4 5 9

53. shopping facilities 1 2 3 4 5 9

54. community spirit 1 2 3 4 5 9

55. transportation 1 2 3 4 5 9

56. transportation costs 1 2 3 4 5 9

57. childcare facilities 1 2 3 4 5 9

58. youth services 1 2 3 4 5 9

59. aged services 1 2 3 4 5 9

60. disability services 1 2 3 4 5 9

73

From your own experience, how satisfactory has it been to make the following lifestyle adjustments since moving to this area?

very satisfactory somewhat unsatisfactory not

satisfactory unsatisfactory applicable 61. making new friends 1 2 3 4 9

62. maintaining family ties 1 2 3 4 9

63. living a different lifestyle 1 2 3 4 9

64. getting involved in the community

1 2 3 4 9

65. finding paid work 1 2 3 4 9

66. accessing community services

1 2 3 4 9

67. Overall, how do you rate your previous community, that is Sydney, as a place to live?


1 2 3 4 5

68. To what extent has your last move out of Sydney resulted in you being 'better off' than you were before you moved?

much better somewhat about slightly better much better

off after better off the same off before off before the move after the move the move the move

1 2 3 4 5

69. What is the likelihood of you moving within the next 12 months back to Sydney?

very somewhat not sure somewhat very

likely likely unlikely unlikely 1 2 3 4 5

70. Do you have any other comments you would like to make regarding the difference

between where you live now and where you lived previously?

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

Remember to write your name and address on the front of this survey

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey.

74

Please return it in the prepaid reply envelope provided. Alternatively, please mail to:

Nancy Marshall

Faculty of the Built Environment

The University of New South Wales

UNSW Sydney NSW 2052

Remember to write your name and address on the front of this survey if you wish to have your name enter in the draw for one of five $100 gift vouchers

76

APPENDIX TWO. DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES TERMINOLOGY The Sydney and Adelaide metropolitan regions have been specifically defined for purposes of this research. The definitions generally represent the outer limits of contiguous urban development within the respective cities. Whilst they are not a technical definition, they do articulate the boundaries in order to give the questionnaire respondent more than an ‘intuitive sense’ of the city region. Any ambiguities noted by respondents will be dealt with during the data manipulation phase of the research.

Sydney has been defined as the area within the boundaries of Penrith, Campbelltown, Sutherland and Hornsby.

Adelaide is seen as being within the boundaries of Gawler, Mount Barker, and Noarlunga.

This following section has been copied verbatim from Centrelink’s (2001) A Guide to Commonwealth Government Payments. Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services and Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. It presents, for each of the income support categories studied, the basic conditions of eligibility and residential qualifications required for payment. Whilst these payment criteria are determined by the Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services, the actual income support payment system is administered by Centrelink offices.

Newstart Allowance (Unemployment Income Support) Basic Conditions of Eligibility:

Must be unemployed, and capable of undertaking, available for and actively seeking work or temporarily incapacitated for work.

Aged 21 or more but under Age Pension age and registered as unemployed.

May do training and voluntary work with approval.

Willing to enter into a Preparing for Work Agreement if required, allowing participation in a broad range of activities.

NSA recipients incapacitated for work remain on NSA, subject to medical certificates.

Residential Qualifications:

Must be an Australian resident.

Available to newly arrived migrants after 104 weeks as an Australian resident in Australia (some exemptions may apply).

If exempt from activity test may be paid for up to 26 weeks of temporary overseas absence in certain circumstances.

Youth Allowance (Youth Unemployment)* *Whilst this income-support category can include full-time students, our study does not. Students have been delineated out of the sample by FaCS criteria.

Basic Conditions of Eligibility:

Full-time students aged 16 to 24 years, or temporarily incapacitated for study;

- 16 and 17 year olds must generally be in full-time study;

- Students aged 25 years and over, getting Youth Allowance immediately before turning 25 AND remaining in the same course.

Unemployed aged under 21 years, looking for work or combining part-time study with job search, or undertaking any other approved activity, or temporarily incapacitated for work.

77

Independent 15 year olds above the school leaving age (e.g. homeless) who are in full-time study or undertaking a combination of approved activities.

78


Must be an Australian resident.

Available to newly arrived migrants after 104 weeks as an Australian resident in Australia (some exemptions may apply).

If exempt from activity test may be paid for up to 26 weeks of temporary overseas absence in certain circumstances. Different rules apply to full-time students.

Parenting Payment Basic Conditions of Eligibility:

Must have qualifying child under 16 (sole and partnered parents).

Can be paid to only one member of a couple.


Australian resident for 104 weeks (not including absences), or a refugee, or became a sole parent while an Australian resident.

Can be paid for up to 26 weeks for temporary overseas absences.

Different rules apply if person is covered by an International Social Security Agreement.

Aged Pension Basic Conditions of Eligibility:

Men aged 65 or over OR women age increasing (see table below).

Women born between Eligible for Age Pension at Age

1 July 1935 and 31 Dec. 1936 60 1/2

1 Jan. 1937 and 30 June 1938 61

1 July 1938 and 31 Dec. 1939 61 1/2

1 Jan. 1940 and 30 June 1941 62

1 July 1941 and 31 Dec. 1942 62 1/2

1 Jan. 1943 and 30 June 1944 63

1 July 1944 and 31 Dec. 1945 63 1/2

1 Jan. 1946 and 30 June 1947 64

1 July 1947 and 31 Dec. 1948 64 1/2

1 Jan. 1949 and later 65


Must be an Australian resident and in Australia on the day the claim is lodged, unless claiming under an International Social Security Agreement.

Must have been an Australian resident for a total of at least 10 years, at least five of these years in one period; OR

Residence in certain countries with which Australia has an International Social Security Agreement may count towards Australian residence; OR

79

May have a qualifying residence exemption (arrived as refugee or under special humanitarian program); OR

A woman who is widowed in Australia, when both she and her late partner were Australian residents and who has 104 weeks residence immediately prior to claim; OR

Was in receipt of Widow B Pension, Widow Allowance, Mature Age Allowance or Partner Allowance immediately before turning Age Pension age.

Can be paid overseas indefinitely (rate may change after 26 weeks).

Disability Support Pension Basic Conditions of Eligibility:

Aged 16 or more but under Age Pension age at date of claim lodgement; AND

Must have a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment assessed at 20 points or more; AND

Inability to work for at least the next two years as a result of impairment; AND

Inability, as a result of impairment, to undertake educational or vocational training which would equip the person for work within the next two years; OR

Aged 16 or more but under Age Pension age at date of claim lodgement; AND

Be permanently blind.


Must be an Australian resident and in Australia on the day the claim is lodged, unless claiming under an International Social Security Agreement.

Must have been an Australian resident for a total of at least 10 years, at least five of these years in one period; OR

Residence in certain countries with which Australia has an International Social Security Agreement may count towards Australian residence; OR

May have a qualifying residence exemption (arrived as refugee or under special humanitarian program); OR

Immediately eligible if inability to work occurred while an Australian resident or during temporary absence.

May be paid for up to 26 weeks of temporary overseas absence or indefinitely if severely disabled.

80

APPENDIX THREE. QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS: FREQUENCY COUNTS Personal Details: 1. In which state do you currently live?

1117 74.7 74.7 74.7376 25.1 25.1 99.8

2 .1 .1 99.91 .1 .1 100.0

1496 100.0 100.0

NSWSouth AustraliaVictoriaQueenslandTotal

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

2. Are you male or female?

493 33.0 33.0 33.0999 66.8 66.8 99.7

4 .3 .3 100.01496 100.0 100.0

malefemaleN/ATotal


CumulativePercent

3a. What is your current postcode?

1496 100.0 100.0 100.0responseValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

3b. What is the name of the place where you live?


CumulativePercent

4. What was your postcode when you last lived in Sydney?


CumulativePercent

5. Please indicate which type of income support payment you currently receive.

81

55 3.7 3.7 3.7312 20.9 20.9 24.5

39 2.6 2.6 27.1291 19.5 19.5 46.6296 19.8 19.8 66.4474 31.7 31.7 98.1

9 .6 .6 98.720 1.3 1.3 100.0

1496 100.0 100.0

Not receiving any benefitsunemploymentyouth allowancedisabilitysingle parentage pensionnot sureN/ATotal


CumulativePercent

82

6. What is your age?

249 16.6 16.6 16.6214 14.3 14.3 30.9219 14.6 14.6 45.6212 14.2 14.2 59.8174 11.6 11.6 71.4427 28.5 28.5 99.9

1496 100.0 100.0 100.00

15-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465+Total


CumulativePercent

7. In which country were you born?

1184 79.1 79.1 79.1263 17.6 17.6 96.7

49 3.3 3.3 100.01496 100.0 100.0

Australiaoutside of AustraliaN/ATotal


CumulativePercent

8a. How long have you lived in Australia?

1 .1 .3 .31 .1 .3 .6

31 2.1 9.9 10.6263 17.6 84.3 94.9

16 1.1 5.1 100.0312 20.9 100.0

1184 79.11496 100.0

<5 years5-9 years10-19 years>19 yearsN/ATotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

Percent

8b. Are you an Australian citizen?

232 15.5 74.4 74.469 4.6 22.1 96.511 .7 3.5 100.0

312 20.9 100.01184 79.11496 100.0

citizennon citizenN/ATotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent

83

9. Which of the following best describes the current makeup of your household?

399 26.7 26.7 26.7340 22.7 22.7 49.4103 6.9 6.9 56.3310 20.7 20.7 77.0

110 7.4 7.4 84.4

21 1.4 1.4 85.810 .7 .7 86.476 5.1 5.1 91.528 1.9 1.9 93.441 2.7 2.7 96.1

9 .6 .6 96.718 1.2 1.2 97.9

31 2.1 2.1 100.0

1496 100.0 100.0

only yourselfcouple without dependent childcouple with dependent childa parent with dependent childgroup of adults to whom you arenot relatedotherN/Anot statedwith parentsgroup of related family membergroup of related adultswith parentsgroup of related and unrelatedfamilyTotal


CumulativePercent

10. Which of the following best describes the makeup of your household when you last lived in

Sydney?

338 22.6 22.6 22.6342 22.9 22.9 45.5184 12.3 12.3 57.8235 15.7 15.7 73.5

182 12.2 12.2 85.6

13 .9 .9 86.530 2.0 2.0 88.580 5.3 5.3 93.913 .9 .9 94.720 1.3 1.3 96.114 .9 .9 97.012 .8 .8 97.8

33 2.2 2.2 100.0

1496 100.0 100.0

only yourselfcouple without dependent childcouple with dependent childa parent with dependent childgroup of adults to whom you arenot relatedotherN/Anot statedwith parentsgroup of related family membergroup of related adultswith parentsgroup of related and unrelatedfamilyTotal


CumulativePercent

Employment: 11. Do you currently have any paid employment?

201 13.4 13.4 13.41268 84.8 84.8 98.2

27 1.8 1.8 100.01496 100.0 100.0

yesnoN/ATotal


CumulativePercent

84

85

12. On average, approximately how many hours per week do you work in paid employment?

56 3.7 24.6 24.650 3.3 21.9 46.538 2.5 16.7 63.242 2.8 18.4 81.6

9 .6 3.9 85.533 2.2 14.5 100.0

228 15.2 100.01268 84.81496 100.0

0-10 hrs/week11-20 hrs/week21-30 hrs/week32-40 hrs/week41+ hrs/weekN/ATotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent

13. The main income earner currently in your household is?

1096 73.3 73.3 73.383 5.5 5.5 78.882 5.5 5.5 84.327 1.8 1.8 86.1

102 6.8 6.8 92.9106 7.1 7.1 100.0

1496 100.0 100.0

youyour partneryour parentyour childotherN/ATotal


CumulativePercent

14. The main income earner in your household when you last lived in Sydney was?

1040 69.5 69.5 69.5160 10.7 10.7 80.2

62 4.1 4.1 84.424 1.6 1.6 86.0

119 8.0 8.0 93.991 6.1 6.1 100.0

1496 100.0 100.0

youyour partneryour parentyour childotherN/ATotal


CumulativePercent

15. When you last lived in Sydney were you personally....

251 16.8 16.8 16.8123 8.2 8.2 25.0850 56.8 56.8 81.8142 9.5 9.5 91.3

15 1.0 1.0 92.335 2.3 2.3 94.780 5.3 5.3 100.0

1496 100.0 100.0

employed full timeemployed part timeunemployedemployed casuallyemployed seasonallyotherN/ATotal


CumulativePercent

86

Residential Location History:

16. Which of the following best describes the immediate area in which you currently live?

172 11.5 11.5 11.5514 34.4 34.4 45.9334 22.3 22.3 68.2181 12.1 12.1 80.3167 11.2 11.2 91.4

70 4.7 4.7 96.158 3.9 3.9 100.0

1496 100.0 100.0

villagesmall townlarge townregional cityrural areaotherN/ATotal


CumulativePercent

17. Have you lived in this area previously?

389 26.0 26.0 26.01095 73.2 73.2 99.2

12 .8 .8 100.01496 100.0 100.0

yesnoN/ATotal


CumulativePercent

18. Where did you spend most of your childhood up to the age of 16? (choose only one)

158 10.6 10.6 10.6

689 46.1 46.1 56.6129 8.6 8.6 65.2280 18.7 18.7 84.0217 14.5 14.5 98.5

23 1.5 1.5 100.01496 100.0 100.0

the area where youlive nowAdelaideanother Australian cityrural districtanother countryN/ATotal


CumulativePercent

19. When did you last live in Sydney?

412 27.5 27.5 27.5328 21.9 21.9 49.5318 21.3 21.3 70.7397 26.5 26.5 97.3

41 2.7 2.7 100.01496 100.0 100.0

less than 6 months ago6-9 months ago9-12 months agomore than 1 year agoN/ATotal


CumulativePercent

87

20. How long did you live in Sydney, when you last lived there?

96 6.4 6.4 6.4115 7.7 7.7 14.1193 12.9 12.9 27.0189 12.6 12.6 39.6872 58.3 58.3 97.9

31 2.1 2.1 100.01496 100.0 100.0

less than 6 months ago6-9 months ago9-12 months agomore than 1 year ago5N/ATotal


CumulativePercent

Social and Economic Change:

21. – 35. How important were the following considerations for you in deciding to move out of Sydney?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

very important 192 16.3 16.3

important 168 14.3 14.3

somewhat important 183 15.5 15.5

not important 164 13.9 13.9

Q21 Job opportunities

N/A 470 39.9 39.9

not stated 0 0


important 117 7.8 9.6



Q22 Retirementopportunities

N/A 629 42.0 51.5

not stated 274 18.3





Q23 Change in marital orrelationship status

N/A 696 46.5 58.9

not stated 315 21.1



Q24 Distance to work


88


N/A 659 44.1 57.2

not stated 343 22.9





Q25 Location to raise myfamily

N/A 640 42.8 54.8

not stated 328 21.9

89



important 342 22.9 28.3



Q26 Housing quality

N/A 200 13.4 16.6

not stated 289 19.3


important 274 18.3 22.3



Q27 Housing costs

N/A 183 12.2 14.9

not stated 266 17.8





Q28 Wanted to own ahouse instead of renting

N/A 663 44.3 56.7

not stated 326 21.8


important 241 16.1 19.6



Q29 Wanted to liveoutside the city

N/A 175 11.7 14.3

not stated 269 18.0


important 245 16.4 20.0



Q30 Crime levels

N/A 195 13.0 15.9

not stated 269 18.0

very important 361 24.1 29.7 Q31 Distance to familyand friends

important 225 15.0 18.5

90



N/A 200 13.4 16.5

not stated 282 18.9





Q32 Change inemployment situation

N/A 610 40.8 52.6

not stated 336 22.5

91






Q33 Own or rented aholiday home in the area

N/A 895 59.8 77.7

not stated 344 23.0


important 263 17.6 21.9



Q34 Cost of living

N/A 209 14.0 17.4

not stated 297 19.9



somewhat important 11 .7 1.4

not important 14 .9 1.8

N/A 455 30.4 59.2

Q35 Other

not stated 727 48.6

36. Overall, to what extent were housing costs a key factor in your move out of Sydney?

615 41.1 42.9 42.9271 18.1 18.9 61.8205 13.7 14.3 76.1159 10.6 11.1 87.2184 12.3 12.8 100.0

1434 95.9 100.062 4.1

1496 100.0

very importantimportantsomewhat importantnot importantN/ATotal

Valid

99MissingTotal


Percent

92

Housing Indicators:

37. Which one of the following best describes your present housing situation?

439 29.3 29.3 29.389 5.9 5.9 35.3

188 12.6 12.6 47.9

431 28.8 28.8 76.7

112 7.5 7.5 84.271 4.7 4.7 88.9

9 .6 .6 89.535 2.3 2.3 91.833 2.2 2.2 94.187 5.8 5.8 99.9

2 .1 .1 100.01496 100.0 100.0

own outrightpurchasingrenting privatelyrenting and receiving Centrelinkrent assistancerenting from governmentothernot statedboarding/lodgingboarding with parentsliving with parents/familydon't know/not answeredTotal


CumulativePercent

38. Which one of the following best describes your housing situation when you last lived in

Sydney?

386 25.8 25.8 25.8121 8.1 8.1 33.9302 20.2 20.2 54.1

305 20.4 20.4 74.5

135 9.0 9.0 83.561 4.1 4.1 87.630 2.0 2.0 89.646 3.1 3.1 92.612 .8 .8 93.476 5.1 5.1 98.522 1.5 1.5 100.0

1496 100.0 100.0

own outrightpurchasingrenting privatelyrenting and receiving Centrelinkrent assistancerenting from governmentothernot statedboarding/lodgingboarding with parentsliving with parents/familydon't know/not answeredTotal


CumulativePercent

39. How much do you spend on your housing now as compared to when you last lived in

Sydney?

93

129 8.6 8.6 8.6178 11.9 11.9 20.5412 27.5 27.5 48.1356 23.8 23.8 71.9345 23.1 23.1 94.9

76 5.1 5.1 100.01496 100.0 100.0

a lot moremoreabout the samelessa lot lessN/ATotal


CumulativePercent

94

40. Which one of the following best describes the type of dwelling you presently live in?

980 65.5 65.5 65.5192 12.8 12.8 78.3

9 .6 .6 78.9

131 8.8 8.8 87.7

53 3.5 3.5 91.265 4.3 4.3 95.655 3.7 3.7 99.311 .7 .7 100.0

1496 100.0 100.0

houseflatboarding housetownhouse, villa,semi-detachedcaravan parkretirement villageotherN/ATotal


CumulativePercent

41. Which one of the following best describes the type of dwelling you had when you last lived in Sydney?

960 64.2 64.2 64.2310 20.7 20.7 84.9

25 1.7 1.7 86.6

110 7.4 7.4 93.9

17 1.1 1.1 95.16 .4 .4 95.5

50 3.3 3.3 98.818 1.2 1.2 100.0

1496 100.0 100.0

houseflatboarding housetownhouse, villa,semi-detachedcaravan parkretirement villageotherN/ATotal


CumulativePercent

Q42. – 45. How would you rate your current housing situation as compared to when you last lived in Sydney?


much better here 664 44.4 48.3

somewhat better here 273 18.2 19.8

equal in both locations 265 17.7 19.3

somewhat better there 92 6.1 6.7

much better there 82 5.5 6.0

Q42 Quality of housing

N/A 120 8.0




Q43 Size of housing


95


N/A 191 12.8







Q44 Affordability ofhousing

N/A 221 14.8






Q45 Location of housing in relation towork opportunities

N/A 484 32.4

Life Satisfaction:

46. What are the 3 things you like most about living at your current location?

96

Q46+1 Three things liked most about Current Location

58 3.9 3.9 3.9

107 7.2 7.2 11.0

323 21.6 21.6 32.6

73 4.9 4.9 37.527 1.8 1.8 39.3

102 6.8 6.8 46.141 2.7 2.7 48.911 .7 .7 49.622 1.5 1.5 51.182 5.5 5.5 56.610 .7 .7 57.278 5.2 5.2 62.4

161 10.8 10.8 73.253 3.5 3.5 76.736 2.4 2.4 79.142 2.8 2.8 82.043 2.9 2.9 84.868 4.5 4.5 89.413 .9 .9 90.258 3.9 3.9 94.188 5.9 5.9 100.0

1496 100.0 100.0

Know/likearea/location/atmosphereSense ofcommunity/caring/friendlypeople/neighboursPeaceful/relaxed/lessnoise/trafficSafe/secure/less crime/drugsLike country/rural settingclean air/less pollutionenvironments/viewsbusland/naturebetter weatherbetter quality of lifebetter for childrenclose to the beachesclose to relativesclose to amenitiesclose to schools/unimore spacesbetter accomodationcheapernoneothernot statedTotal


CumulativePercent

97


62 4.1 4.1 4.1

155 10.4 10.4 14.5

272 18.2 18.2 32.7

94 6.3 6.3 39.023 1.5 1.5 40.591 6.1 6.1 46.637 2.5 2.5 49.127 1.8 1.8 50.936 2.4 2.4 53.359 3.9 3.9 57.221 1.4 1.4 58.672 4.8 4.8 63.489 5.9 5.9 69.470 4.7 4.7 74.159 3.9 3.9 78.042 2.8 2.8 80.838 2.5 2.5 83.467 4.5 4.5 87.810 .7 .7 88.541 2.7 2.7 91.2

131 8.8 8.8 100.01496 100.0 100.0



CumulativePercent

98


52 3.5 3.5 3.5

175 11.7 11.7 15.2

228 15.2 15.2 30.4

74 4.9 4.9 35.429 1.9 1.9 37.387 5.8 5.8 43.132 2.1 2.1 45.327 1.8 1.8 47.126 1.7 1.7 48.869 4.6 4.6 53.422 1.5 1.5 54.950 3.3 3.3 58.289 5.9 5.9 64.291 6.1 6.1 70.327 1.8 1.8 72.134 2.3 2.3 74.329 1.9 1.9 76.370 4.7 4.7 80.913 .9 .9 81.852 3.5 3.5 85.3

220 14.7 14.7 100.01496 100.0 100.0



CumulativePercent

99

47. What are the 3 things you like least about living at your current location?

Q47-1 Three things least liked about Current Location

42 2.8 2.8 2.8

79 5.3 5.3 8.1133 8.9 8.9 17.0

8 .5 .5 17.557 3.8 3.8 21.3

144 9.6 9.6 30.9126 8.4 8.4 39.4144 9.6 9.6 49.0

12 .8 .8 49.853 3.5 3.5 53.334 2.3 2.3 55.620 1.3 1.3 57.021 1.4 1.4 58.418 1.2 1.2 59.615 1.0 1.0 60.617 1.1 1.1 61.722 1.5 1.5 63.213 .9 .9 64.021 1.4 1.4 65.416 1.1 1.1 66.511 .7 .7 67.218 1.2 1.2 68.4

139 9.3 9.3 77.7114 7.6 7.6 85.4219 14.6 14.6 100.0

1496 100.0 100.0

lack of activities/ entertainment/boring/ nothing to dolack of/ poor amenities/ facilitieslack of/ poor transportcost of transportcost of livinglack of jobdistance to placedistance from familydon't feel independentpoor/expensive medical servicesclimatecrimenoisyfeel isolatedhouse too smallpestsdislike neighbourslack of privacynot my own placetrafficsizethe people/communitynothing I dislikeotherdon't knowTotal


CumulativePercent

100


47 3.1 3.1 3.1

92 6.1 6.1 9.376 5.1 5.1 14.412 .8 .8 15.278 5.2 5.2 20.480 5.3 5.3 25.792 6.1 6.1 31.974 4.9 4.9 36.8

6 .4 .4 37.255 3.7 3.7 40.933 2.2 2.2 43.128 1.9 1.9 45.018 1.2 1.2 46.218 1.2 1.2 47.427 1.8 1.8 49.212 .8 .8 50.012 .8 .8 50.822 1.5 1.5 52.3

1 .1 .1 52.39 .6 .6 52.92 .1 .1 53.1

31 2.1 2.1 55.155 3.7 3.7 58.8

128 8.6 8.6 67.4488 32.6 32.6 100.0

1496 100.0 100.0

lack of activities/ entertainment/boring/ nothing to dolack of/ poor amenities/ facilitieslack of/ poor transportcost of transportcost of livinglack of jobdistance to placedistance from familydon't feel independentpoor/expensive medical servicesclimatecrimenoisyfeel isolatedhouse too smallpestsdislike neighbourslack of privacynot my own placetrafficsizethe people/communitynothing i dislikeotherdon't knowTotal


CumulativePercent

101


50 3.3 3.3 3.3

92 6.1 6.1 9.570 4.7 4.7 14.2

3 .2 .2 14.469 4.6 4.6 19.034 2.3 2.3 21.367 4.5 4.5 25.730 2.0 2.0 27.7

7 .5 .5 28.233 2.2 2.2 30.423 1.5 1.5 32.018 1.2 1.2 33.2

8 .5 .5 33.724 1.6 1.6 35.312 .8 .8 36.114 .9 .9 37.011 .7 .7 37.811 .7 .7 38.5

4 .3 .3 38.812 .8 .8 39.6

2 .1 .1 39.721 1.4 1.4 41.149 3.3 3.3 44.4

131 8.8 8.8 53.1701 46.9 46.9 100.0

1496 100.0 100.0

lack of activities/ entertainment/boring/ nothing to dolack of/ poor amenities/ facilitieslack of/ poor transportcost of transportcost of livinglack of jobdistance to placedistance from familydon't feel independentpoor/expensive medical servicesclimatecrimenoisyfeel isolatedhouse too smallpestsdislike neighbourslack of privacynot my own placetrafficsizethe people/communitynothing i dislikeotherdon't knowTotal


CumulativePercent

48. Overall, how do you rate this community as a place to live?

804 53.7 53.7 53.7458 30.6 30.6 84.4149 10.0 10.0 94.3

43 2.9 2.9 97.218 1.2 1.2 98.424 1.6 1.6 100.0

1496 100.0 100.0

very goodgoodneutralpoorvery poorN/ATotal


CumulativePercent

102

49. – 60. How would you rate the following community amenities and services where you live now as compared to where you last lived in Sydney?







N/A 188 12.6 13.4

Q49 Restaurants andclubs

not stated 92 6.1

Q50 Health services much better here 149 10.0 10.5





N/A 57 3.8 4.0

not stated 82 5.5

Q51 Recreation facilities much better here 206 13.8 15.0





N/A 114 7.6 8.3

not stated 119 8.0






N/A 54 3.6

Q52 Banking/commercialservices

not stated 86 5.7

Q53 Shopping facilities much better here 164 11.0 11.6




103


N/A 33 2.2 2.3

not stated 87 5.8

Q54 Community spirit much better here 579 38.7 41.8





N/A 57 3.8 4.1

not stated 110 7.4


Q55 Transportation much better here 116 7.8 8.3





N/A 104 7.0 7.5

not stated 104 7.0






N/A 192 12.8 14.1

Q56 Transportation costs

not stated 135 9.0

Q57 Childcare facilities much better here 76 5.1 5.9





N/A 752 50.3 58.4

not stated 208 13.9

Q58 Youth services much better here 72 4.8 5.7

104





N/A 661 44.2 52.0

not stated 224 15.0

Q59 Aged services much better here 148 9.9 10.8





N/A 505 33.8 36.9

not stated 126 8.4

Q60 Disability services much better here 130 8.7 9.7





N/A 547 36.6 40.9

not stated 159 10.6

105

61. – 66. From your own experience, how satisfactory has it been to make the following lifestyle adjustments since moving to this area?


very satisfactory 459 30.7 32.1

satisfactory 656 43.9 45.9

somewhat unsatisfactory 133 8.9 9.3

unsatisfactory 94 6.3 6.6

N/A 87 5.8 6.1

Q61 Making new friends

not stated 67 4.5





N/A 81 5.4 5.7

Q62 Maintaining familyties

not stated 76 5.1





N/A 53 3.5 3.7

Q63 Living a differentlifestyle

not stated 82 5.5





Q64 Getting involved inthe community

N/A 260 17.4 19.0

not stated 130 8.7





N/A 655 43.8 49.5

Q65 Finding a paid work

not stated 174 11.6

very satisfactory 258 17.2 18.9 Q66 Accessing communityservices


106



N/A 220 14.7 16.1

not stated 133 8.9

107

67. Overall, how do you rate your previous community, that is Sydney, as a place to live?

255 17.0 17.0 17.0485 32.4 32.4 49.5328 21.9 21.9 71.4226 15.1 15.1 86.5167 11.2 11.2 97.7

35 2.3 2.3 100.01496 100.0 100.0

very goodgoodneutralpoorvery poorN/ATotal


CumulativePercent

68. To what extent has your last move out of Sydney resulted in you being 'better off' than you were before you moved?

593 39.6 41.0 41.0

441 29.5 30.5 71.5

243 16.2 16.8 88.3

86 5.7 5.9 94.2

84 5.6 5.8 100.01447 96.7 100.0

49 3.31496 100.0

much better offafter the movesomewhat betteroff after the moveabout the sameslightly better offbefore the moveN/ATotal

Valid

99MissingTotal


Percent

69. What is the likelihood of you moving within the next 12 months back to Sydney?

105 7.0 7.0 7.063 4.2 4.2 11.2

178 11.9 11.9 23.1122 8.2 8.2 31.3991 66.2 66.2 97.5

37 2.5 2.5 100.01496 100.0 100.0

very likelysomewhat likelynot suresomewhat unlikelyvery unlikelyN/ATotal


CumulativePercent

70. Do you have any other comments you would like to make regarding the difference between where you live now and where you lived previously?

1022 68.3 100.0 100.0474 31.7

1496 100.0

responseValidnon-responseMissing

Total


Percent

much better before

Total

108

APPENDIX FOUR. DETAILED SURVEY RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS This Appendix presents descriptive data on the respondents by aggregate, income-support type and State. It indicates who the respondents were according to personal details pre-and post-move, household composition, pre and post-move employment status and residential location history. Highlights from this Appendix are found throughout Chapter of this report.

Aggregate Respondent Characteristics Of the 4900 questionnaires dispatched to NSW residents, 1117 were returned for a response rate of 23%. Of the 2100 questionnaires sent to SA residents, 376 were returned for a response rate of 18%. Overall, the combined survey response rate was 21%.

Table. Sample Population and Actual Respondent Statistics

* NSW +SA

Income Recipient

Totals

I-S category as % of

NSW+SA total I-S

population

I-S category as % of

total survey returns

NSW questionnaires sent out

NSW returns

SA questionnaires sent out

SA

returns

Unemployed 240999 16 14 1470 223 688 88

Youth Unemployed 37194 2 8 294 24 189 14

Disabled 281256 19 22 882 203 415 88

Single Parent 178842 12 20 1029 219 436 77

Aged Pension 781706 51 30 1225 390 372 84

Subtotal 1519997 100 95 4900 1059 2100 351

Not receiving any benefits 4 34 20

Not sure 1 8 1

Not stated 1 16 4

Total 1519997 101 4900 1117 2100 376

* Source: Centrelink 2002

The table above shows the total population from which the survey sample was drawn (14 December 2001). That is, in NSW plus SA, 1,519,997 income-support recipients (Unemployed, Youth Unemployed (excluding full-time students), Disabled, Single Parents and Aged Pensioners) were receiving a Commonwealth Government payment, as determined by Family and Community Services and administered by Centrelink offices. This research surveyed .5% of all income-support recipients in the States of NSW and SA. Using FaCS’ LDS as a basis for more accurate information, approximately 16,128 income-support recipients move from metro to non-metro NSW in a 12-month period. This research surveyed 4900 in NSW or 30% of all income-support movers out of Sydney. Approximately 5,680 income-support recipients move from metro to non-metro SA annually, of which 2100 were surveyed – 37% of all income-support movers out of Adelaide.

As noted in the third and fourth columns from the left, the research responses, as percentages of the total income-support population in NSW and SA, are over-represented by Youth

109

Unemployed (although the actual numbers in this category are very small) and Single Parents. The percentages are under-representative of the Aged Pension category. This was deliberate in the design of the survey in order to get more balanced actual case numbers across all income-support categories. Four percent of respondents stated they were not receiving any benefits at the time of the survey. As explained by Centrelink staff (Centrelink 2002), these few cases could be the result of recent changes in these clients’ status, i.e., these clients had stopped receiving a payment between the time the sample was drawn on December 14, 2001 and the time clients answered the questionnaire (sometime between January-March, 2002), the lag time some clients take in reporting these changes and Centrelink’s response to making changes to its client database.

Respondent Characteristics: State and Gender Representations

75%

25%

NSW SA

33%

67%

Male Female

In aggregate, three-quarters of the 1496 respondents were from NSW and 25% from SA. Two-thirds (67%) were female and 33% male. Respondent Characteristics: Income-Support Type Representation

Unemployed22%

Disabled20%

Sole Parents21%

Aged34%

Youth Unemployed3%

Unemployed

Disabled

Sole Parents

Aged

YouthUnemployed

The aggregate split of income-support recipients who responded to the questionnaire is represented in the figure above. For each income-support category, the split between NSW and SA was fairly close to the state split of NSW 75% and SA 25%. For example, 72% of the Unemployed were from NSW and 28% from SA; 74% of all Single Parents were from NSW and 26% from SA. The Aged Pensioners were, however, slightly over-represented in NSW and hence under-represented in SA. The only significant point in the gender split by income-support type although not surprising, was that 96% of all Single Parents were female. Of all Single Parents, one-fifth were aged between 15-24 years, with almost half of all Single Parents under the age of 34 years. Other specific percentages are shown below.

110

Income-Support Recipient Characteristics Percentages of Survey Respondent Characteristics by Income-Support Type

Characteristic Percent

Unemployed Percent Disabled

Percent Single Parent

Percent Aged

Pensioner

State

NSW 70 70 74 82

SA 29 30 26 18

Total 99% 100% 100% 100%

Gender

Male 46 47 4 33

Female 53 53 96 67

Total 99% 100% 100% 100%

Age

15-24 40 9 20 0

25-34 21 10 30 0

35-44 11 21 36 0

45-54 20 34 11 0

55-64 9 25 1 13

65+ 0 1 2 87

Total 101% 100% 100% 100%

The income-support group with the highest percentage of respondents ‘born in Australia’ was the Youth Allowance group at 100% (although this actual number was small – 39 individuals), followed by Single Parents at 88%. Sixteen percent of the Unemployed were not born in Australia. The Aged Pensioner group had the lowest percentage of individuals born in Australia at 68%. Whilst nearly two-thirds of all Aged Pensioners were not born in Australia, 91% of this group had lived in Australia for 20+ years.

111

Household Make-up Before and After Moving by Income-Support Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

only yourself couple withno children

couple withchild(ren)

a parent withchild(ren)

group ofunrelated

adults

other

Per

cent

Unemployment non-metro Unemployed Sydney/AdelaideDisabled non-metro Disabled Sydney/AdelaideSingle parents non-metro Single parents Sydney/AdelaideAged pensioner non-metro Aged pensioner Sydney/Adelaide

Significant changes in income-support type household composition, before and after moving are noted in the figure above. The most significant changes seen after moving were in the Single Parent group, with a decrease (by 18%) in the number of individuals who were part of a couple with a dependent child or children and an increase by 28% of a household becoming defined as a sole parent with dependent child(ren). A change, by 14%, saw more Disabled income-support recipients describing their household makeup as ‘only themselves’ after moving out of Sydney and Adelaide. The other noticeable difference in household makeup was the decrease, by 12%, of the Unemployed who lived with a group of unrelated adults after moving out of Sydney and Adelaide.

Twenty percent of all Unemployed and 18% of Single Parent respondents indicated they currently had some paid employment. Of these Unemployed, 74% worked less than 20 hours/week with 40% of them working less than 10 hours/week. Of these Single Parents, 61% worked less than 20 hours/week and 23% of them worked more than 30 hours/week.

When Unemployed income-support recipients previously lived in Sydney or Adelaide, 30% indicated they were employed full-time, with 57% of those individuals having some employment (full-time, part-time, casual or seasonal). When Single Parent income-support recipients previously lived in Sydney or Adelaide, 13% indicated they were employed full-time, with 44% of them having some employment.

There were shifts in who was regarded as the main income earner in a household before and after the move. For all income-support recipients, the main income earner, both before and after the move, was the payment recipient themselves. However, the percentages changed after moving. After moving, 7% fewer Unemployed were the main income earner, the only support type to decrease (from 64% to 57%). In support of this, parents of the Unemployed increased by 7% (to 15%) as the main income earner for this income-support type, suggesting that some of the Unemployed were moving back in with their parents. In contrast, 16% more Single Parents were the main income earner after moving to a non-metro area (changing from 76% to 92%). This was consistent with changes in household composition as noted above whereby Single Parent recipients seemed to be moving out on their own with their child(ren). Changes in Disabled and Aged Pension categories were negligible with 71% and 76% of them respectively, being the household’s main income earner. Surprisingly, only 4% of Aged Pensioners indicated that a child was the main income earner in the household, before and after the move, suggesting that seniors were not moving in with their children who would be the main income earner.

112

Where Respondents Moved to by Income-Support Type

05

1015202530354045

village small town large town regional city rural area other

Perc

ent

Moved to… Unemployed Moved to… DisabledMoved to… Single parent Moved to… Aged pensioner

For all income-support types, more than one-third of all respondents moved to a small town (defined as having a population of less than 10,000) - the highest percentage was that of the Aged Pensioners at 39% of them moving to small towns. This group, compared to the others, also had the greatest percentage of its income-support type moving to a village (14%) and the smallest percentage moving to regional cities (8%). Comparatively, the Unemployed had the greatest percentage moving to the most and least populated areas, those being large towns (population greater than 10,000) plus regional cities (39%) and rural areas (13%). Single Parents tended to move to small and large towns rather than villages and rural areas. When asked if they had lived in this [non-metro] area previously, one quarter of all respondents answered ‘yes.’ Of those who had, 37% were Unemployed and only 14% were Aged Pensioners. Childhood Location by Income-Support Type

0102030405060

where youlive now

Sydney orAdelaide

otherAustralian

city

rural area anothercountry

other

Perc

ent

Unemployed Disabled Single parent Aged pensioner

When asked where they spent most of their childhood, more than 40% of respondents noted Sydney or Adelaide - the highest percentages were in the Disabled and Single Parents categories. Comparatively, the Unemployed had the highest percentage of respondents spending their childhood where they currently lived and in a rural area (approximately 20% in each). A quarter of all Aged Pensioners had spent their childhoods in a country other than Australia, the highest of all income-support categories.

Length of Time Lived in Sydney or Adelaide by Income-Support Type

Percent

Unemployed

Percent

Disabled

Percent

Single Parent

Percent

Aged Pensioner

< 6 months 11 6 8 1

6 months - 1 year 13 7 10 2

113

1-3 years 19 15 17 4

3-9 years 17 9 17 7

10+ years 38 60 45 84

Total 98%0 97% 97% 98%

This table shows the length of time respondents had lived in Sydney or Adelaide when they last lived there. The Unemployed were the movers who had spent the least amount of time in Sydney or Adelaide, with one-quarter of them having lived there less than one year. Additionally, the Unemployed had the lowest percentage of respondents (38%) who had lived in Sydney for more than 10 years, whereas 84% of Aged Pensioners had lived in Sydney or Adelaide for more than 10 years. Aggregately, only 14% of all respondents had lived in Sydney or Adelaide for less than one year when they last lived there. This indicates that only a small percentage of these individuals were ‘serial movers’ in and out of these cities. The majority had been very stable residents of a metropolitan area, having lived there for more than 10 years.

State Respondent Characteristics Percentages of Survey Respondent Characteristics by State

Characteristic Percent

NSW Percent

SA Gender Male 32 35 Female 68 65 Total 100% 100% Income-support Category Unemployed 20 23 Youth Unemployed 2 4 Disabled 18 23 Single Parent 20 21 Aged Pensioner 35 22 Not Receiving Benefits 3 5 Other 2 1 Total 100% 99% Age 15-24 16 17 25-34 14 17 35-44 14 18 45-54 13 18 55-64 12 10 65+ 31 21 Total 100% 101%

Both States had approximately the same gender split percentages. With regard to the income-support categories, NSW, as compared to SA, had a higher percentage of Aged Pensioners (and hence people aged over 55 years) who returned the questionnaire, but had a slightly lower percentage than SA in the Unemployed and Disabled categories. The age categories were similar in relative percentages between the two States except for those over 65 years where, as mentioned, NSW had a higher relative percentage.

Both NSW and SA had approximately the same percentages of individuals who were born in Australia (80% and 77% respectively). NSW did not have one survey respondent who had lived

114

in Australia for less than 10 years – SA only had two. Both States had more than 80% of their respondents living in Australia for more than 20 years. There was a difference between the States in citizenship status. In NSW, 77% were Australian citizens whilst 68% of SA respondents were citizens. Ninety-four percent of all respondents who were not born in Australia, in either State, indicated they been in Australia for more than 10 years – 84% more than 20 years.

Household Make-up Before and After Moving by State

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

only yourself couple with nochildren

couple withchild(ren)

a parent withchild(ren)

group ofunrelated

adults

other

Perc

ent

non-metro NSW Sydney non-metro SA Adelaide

Significant changes in household composition were noted, before and after moves out of Sydney and Adelaide as shown in the figure above. A significant change was seen in NSW where fewer individuals lived with a group of unrelated adults in a non-metro area, that is, after they left Sydney than they did before. The other difference between the States was that a slightly greater percentage of individuals in SA had become part of a couple with no dependent child(ren) as compared to NSW. Both States saw slight increases in the percent of individuals who lived on their own and who had become a sole parent with a dependent child(ren) after moving out of Sydney and Adelaide. Both States also saw a decrease in the percent of income-support recipients who were a part of a couple with a dependent child or children after moving. This data supports the idea that relationship changes, namely fewer people being part of a couple and more becoming a sole parent household occurred which may have contributed to the move out of the metropolitan area.

Of all NSW respondents, 12% currently had paid employment whilst 86% did not. Comparatively, when NSW respondents lived in Sydney, 37% suggested they had some employment (full-time, part-time, casual or seasonal). This means that 25% fewer of these respondents had some employment since moving from Sydney. Of the 12% of NSW respondents who currently had paid employment, approximately one-quarter worked less than 10 hours/week whilst another 36% worked more than 21 hours/week.

Of all SA respondents, 17% currently had paid employment whilst 82% did not. Comparatively, when the SA respondents lived in Adelaide, 31% suggested they had some employment (full-time, part-time, casual or seasonal). This equates to 14% fewer of these respondents having some employment since moving from Adelaide. Of the 17% of SA respondents who had paid employment, just over one-quarter worked less than 10 hours/week whilst another 45% worked more than 21 hours/week.

In both States, 70% of respondents were the main income earner in the household when they lived in Sydney/Adelaide. This increased slightly to 73% and 75% respectively after moving to a non-metropolitan area. Partners were the main income earner in 5% of NSW and 8% of SA households after the move, not significantly different from the situation before the move.

115

Where Respondents Moved to by State

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

village small town large town regional city rural area other

Perc

ent

Moved to… NSW Moved to… SA

For both NSW and SA, approximately one-third of all respondents moved to a small town (defined as having a population of less than 10,000). Given the prominence of regional cities in NSW, it is not surprising that a higher percentage of NSW respondents moved to large towns and regional cities than those respondents from SA, 37% compared to 28%. Nearing one-third of SA respondents (29%) moved to a village (with a population of less than 500) or a rural area compared to 21% of the NSW movers.

Childhood Location by State

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

where youlive now

Sydney orAdelaide

otherAustralian

city

rural area anothercountry

other

Perc

ent

NSW SA

When asked where they spent most of their childhood nearly half (49%) of NSW respondents noted Sydney, and 37% of all SA respondents noted Adelaide. A very low percentage (average of 10% for both States) spent their childhood in the area in which they currently live. Compared to NSW, greater percentages of SA movers spent their childhoods in other Australian cities or in a rural area. Sixteen and 12% percent of NSW and SA respondents respectively, spent their childhoods in a country other than Australia.

The length of time it had been since respondents had lived in Sydney or Adelaide was pretty evenly split amongst the following four categories: less than 6 months ago, 6-9 months ago, 9-12 months ago, and more than one year. A point to remember is that it is likely that most of the moves that occurred less than 6 months ago were the last ones before moving to these respondent’s current locations. There is no way to tell where in a pattern of moves the move from Sydney or Adelaide occurred. That is, for some, there could have been one or more moves in-between this location and when they last lived in Sydney or Adelaide.

116

Length of Time the Respondents Lived in Sydney or Adelaide by State

Time in

Sydney or Adelaide

Percent

NSW

Percent

SA

< 6 months 7 5

6 months - 1 year 7 10

1-3 years 12 17

3-9 years 11 17

10+ years 63 46

Total 100 95

This table shows the length of time income-support recipients had lived in Sydney or Adelaide, when they had last lived there. Of note, 63% of NSW respondents had lived in Sydney for more than 10 years. SA movers were slightly less stable but still had nearly half of all respondents living in Adelaide for more than 10 years. Both States had approximately 15% or their respondents living in Sydney and Adelaide for less than 1 year.

117

APPENDIX FIVE. POSTCODES USED FOR DEFINING SURVEY BOUNDARIES The following postcodes defined the metro and non-metropolitan areas for the survey. That is, income-support recipients lived, pre-move in the following Sydney and Adelaide postcode districts. Canberra postcodes were excluded from the survey as were the following Newcastle (north of Sydney) and Wollongong (south of Sydney) postcodes, which were viewed to be part of the Newcastle-Sydney-Wollongong metropolitan conurbation.

Metropolitan Postcodes Included: Sydney metropolitan postcodes 1000 – 1920

2000 – 2082

2084 – 2155

2158

2160 – 2170

2173 – 2177

2190 – 2234

2558

2560

2564 – 2566

2750 – 2751

2760 – 2761

2763

2766 – 2768

2770

Adelaide metropolitan postcodes 5000 – 5001

5005 – 5025

5031 – 5035

5037 – 5052

5061

5063

5065 – 5070

5073 – 5075

5081 – 5088

5090 – 5098

5106 – 5109

5111 – 5113

5127

5158 – 5159

5161 – 5162

118

5164 – 5168

Metropolitan Postcodes Excluded: Newcastle metropolitan postcodes 2280

2285

2289 – 2308

2310

Wollongong metropolitan postcodes 1925 – 1928

2500

2502

2505 – 2506

2517 – 2520

2522

2525 – 2526

Canberra postcodes 200

221

291 – 299

2600 – 2607

2612 – 2617

2900 – 2906

2911 – 2914

1

AHURI Research Centres

Sydney Research Centre

UNSW-UWS Research Centre

RMIT-NATSEM Research Centre

Swinburne-Monash Research Centre

Queensland Research Centre

Western Australia Research Centre

Southern Research Centre

Affiliates

Northern Territory University

National Community Housing Forum

Housing and Urban Research Institute

Level 7 20 Queen Street, Melbourne Victoria 3000

Phone +61 3 9613 5400 Fax +61 3 9629 8536

Email [email protected] Web www.ahuri.edu.au

Welfare outcomes of migration of low-income earners from … · 2015-09-25 · Welfare outcomes of migration of low-income earners from metropolitan to non-metropolitan Australia

Documents